View Full Version : The "Unprecedented" State of Grandsublime-New World Order

10-25-2007, 11:46 PM
-The New World Order-
Salih Mirzabeyoglu

Ibda Publications
First Edition: February 1995
Second Edition: December 2004
Istanbul, Turkey

Salih Mirzabeyoglu was born in Erzincan in 1950, but is originally from Bitlis. His family descends from the Prophet (pbuh,) and were given special status by the Kurdish tribes as leaders of these tribes. His mother is Turkish.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu first met Necip Fazil, his master and another prominent Turkish thinker and writer who founded the Great East as a system of thought, in Eskisehir when he was fifteen years old. He studied Law in the University of Istanbul, and in 1975 began to publish his works. In some of the periodicals he published between 1979 and 1980 he wrote his political-ideological perspectives. After the death of Necip Fazil, he founded IBDA in 1984 and until now, has written over 50 works.
IBDA is a school of thought and action which is also based on “Tasawwuf.” It is based on the wisdom of a Sufi school (tariqat) of Naqshbandiyyah.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu was also the opinion leader of the very well-known “Raiders (Akincilar) Movement” which got involved in a nationwide resistance which had an Islamic character and was against the regime in Turkey from 1975 until the military coup of 1980. Mirzabeyoglu became extremely popular after he started publishing the monthly revolutionary periodical “Golge” (Shadow) in 1975 and the concept “Raider” (Akinci) was mentioned as the common name for members of the Islamic resistance for the first time by Mirzabeyoglu in this publication. Mirzabeyoglu's works, and the fact that a number of his comrades were martyred during their struggle, inspired an unprecedented “revolutionary Islam” all over Turkey, with almost all members of the Islamic resistance appearing after that time calling themselves “Raiders” (Akincilar).
The “system” is apparently the key word for the proposal that only IBDA provides in the Islamic world. IBDA does not deal with only action but it also provides its alternative system to replace the one which is to be eliminated. What IBDA implicitly proposes to the world is an unprecedented solution. Its comprehensive proposal contains all the main ideas and procedures of administrative, executive, judicial, economic, cultural, educational and other subsystems in accordance with the supersystem which is available. Contrary to other types of wishful thinking, this magnificent system proposal is on hand in Mirzabeyoglu’s complete works. That is why he was assaulted brutally and was wanted dead several times by using sophisticated means: “electromagnetic weapons, radiation emitters, directed-sound headphones and hallucinogenic agents put in meals,” actions which are still being carried out. That is why, where Salih Mirzabeyoglu is concerned, Western imperialism and Turkish militarism always had assassination plots on process and in store. He was arrested in 1998 and has been in prison since then, having been accused of destroying and replacing the secular regime with an Islamic one.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu is currently in a high security prison of Bolu.
His works are on themes of Islamic wisdom, Western philosophy, linguistics, politics, economics, law, fine arts, literature, history, quantum physics, mathematics, and so on. He defines himself as a “water bird” which flies between Western Thought and Islamic Wisdom. When he speaks of his relationship with Necip Fazil, he says that it is like that of Plato and Socrates.
His main target is to found the State of “Grandsublime”. The main goal of IBDA is to establish an Islamic state in the world starting with Turkey’s territories, and then by targeting the unity of all other Islamic states, hopefully joining them in a federation-like system; more independent in borders, more dependent out of borders in Union. What it proposes is a distinguished type of regime which is exclusive to IBDA: Aristocracy of Literati, in other words, Aristocracy of Intellectuals who are the most prominent figures of their time. Only the best of society deserve to rule a country, IBDA says. Not like an autocracy, in which all the power is in one person’s hands; not like democracy, where a scholar’s vote is equivalent to that of an ordinary man. He depicts his proposal in his masterpiece, “Basyucelik Devleti – The State of Grandsublime.”
Akademya English

He is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Salih Mirzabeyoglu, the Commander and a Messiah, gives the world not only a system, but a key; not a plan of the Great East, but the means of entering into it. Once, in a vision, I’m told of a celibate recluse or black cell, a man who lived always in one small area, without ever going out. Skeptical about his way of life, I asked Him: “Why are you sitting here, in this cell?” To this he replied: “I am not sitting, I am on a journey.” He is always on the move. He is on a journey through the inward space of the heart, a journey not measured by the hours of our watch or the days of the calendar, for it is a journey out of time into eternity.
The Way, about the Time (Ad-Dahr), is a name that emphasizes the practical character of the Muslim Faith. Islam is the greatest theory about the Universe and a path along which we journey – in the deepest and richest sense, the Way of Life.
The directions given by others can never convey to us what the way is actually like; they cannot be a substitute for direct, personal experience. The Creed does not belong to us unless we have lived it. No one can be an armchair traveler on this all-important journey. No one can be a Muslim at second hand. Allah has soldiers but His grand soldier is the Commander. Muslims need to follow him.
As Muslims, we wish particularly to underline this need for living experience. It is the aim of the present book to uncover the deep sources of the perpetual resurrection. The book indicates the decisive signposts and milestones upon the Spiritual Way.
Allah can not be grasped by the mind. If He could be grasped, He wouldn’t be Allah. The traveler upon the Spiritual Way, the further he advances, becomes increasingly conscious of two contrasting facts – of the otherness and yet the nearness of the Eternal. In the first place, he realizes more and more that Allah is the wholly Other, invisible, inconceivable, radically transcendent, beyond all words, beyond all understanding. Surely, a just born baby knows as much of the world and its ways as the wisest of us can know of the ways of God, whose sway stretches over Heaven and Earth, Time and Eternity. Allah who is comprehensible is not Allah. Allah, that is to say, whom we claim to understand exhaustively through the resources of our reasoning brain, turns out to be no more than an idol, fashioned in our own image. Such an image of Allah is most emphatically not the true and living (Hayy) Allah of the Qur’ân. Man is made in Allah’s image, but the reverse is not true.
The Book shows the progress on the Way, as a state. It is written for the life and for the order of the Age to come. We know, not as hypothesis but as a present fact of experience, that this book contains within itself the seeds of eternity.
In the last analysis we can say that, to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often. The essence of perfection consists precisely in never becoming perfect, but in always reaching forward to some higher perfection that lies beyond. This constant “reaching forward” or “Epektasis” proves limitless. In this way, we will always have something more to learn from the Commander.
Dr. Hakki Acikalin

We, who made a humble effort collectively to translate this masterpiece into English, consider our attempt to be the first, thus the most difficult and perhaps most significant accomplishment. That is because this task proved to be extremely challenging to express the prominent Turkish thinker Salih Mirzabeyoglu’s magnificent views and words, which are both ideologically strong and detailed, and literarily fabulous and well-expressed, in the accurately and with loyalty in the English language. We are certain that countless attempts to translate this work into many other languages will be made from this point on, and we hope that they will be even more sufficient than our own attempt, but simply the honor of the first and introductory attempt is enough for us.
Until now, some people have criticized Muslims for bringing about nothing new other than resistance to imperialism, and for not having a detailed, systematic, and applicable “individual and public” project, which we can apply to our time and place. This work is the project we desired! Besides this “New World Order,” you will also find a full critique of the current “World Public Order,” along with the meaning and characteristics of the clash between the cultures of the East and the West throughout history.
Our gratitude is due to our sponsor Abdullah Kuloglu, to the Turkish translator A. H., to the editors Y. Richardson and H. Soykan, and also to Abdulhamid K. and Dr. H. Acikalin for their invaluable support and encouragement. All of their contributions helped make this effort a reality, and without them this task would have been nothing more than an intention.
Akademya English

Chapter I: Types of States
Chapter II: World Public Order
Chapter III: Western World and Democracy
Chapter IV: Grandsublime State (The New World Order)
Chapter V: From the Book of the Prophet

The believer (Mu’min) is surrounded by five sorts of violence. His Muslim brother is jealous of him; hypocrites (Munafiqs) dislike and grudge him; concealers of truth (Kafirs) take his life; he is constantly plagued by his own ego (Nafs); and the devil (Satan) attempts to mislead him.

In my life I have had my share of these five violent threats framed above. Nevertheless, the first three of them have eventually made me aware of the fact specific to Great East-Ibda soldiers and I must state it as an expression of my gratitude:
“Just as the lion appears at the scene of assembly, what the rabbit, jackal and dog share is a collective shuddering!”
As each person can see from their own perspective, we are not at all playing on a joke, whether in terms of actions or of ideas. We are not like the opportunists who market meaninglessness as toleration. Unlike the cowardly type of people who always avoid “risks” and “suffering” and delaying the phase of “action” and “idea” of the Islamic cause to an obscure future by using auxiliary language like “will” and “shall,” we are the ones who set up the meaning of idealism as a solid, tangible fact. And we set our eyes on the Islamic revolution. The State of Grandsublime?..

We have weighed and known and understood all the causes and effective factors of today’s political and social disorder which exists all around the world and to this point have meticulously made self-criticism considering our existence during the course of history. Now that we have assessed all our weaknesses and strengths, we have to be reborn, as a thorough unit with a new soul, ideology and order. What will become of the world and what will become of us? Which distinctive view of the world shall we base our right to existence on? Which product, of our own invention, shall we promote in the “spiritual common market,” when the old order called democracy and liberalism was “marketed” without a rival bearing the name of “New World Order”? After the decline of the Soviet Union, while first the United States of America and then Europe standing just next to it were and continue trying to dominate like this, how come it suffices to name solely Islam, saying, “Of course, it is beknowst to even children!,” apart from the attitude of voluntary villainy behind the blasphemous? Of course, it is Islam; provided that its “how” and “why” are demonstrated.

The ideal is a yearning; a longing; a dream and a plan, stated by an idea which desires to see its own applications and traces on things and events. And if we call ideology the brain, and the ideal the heart, no desire or zeal or curiosity or behaviour can be ideal if it is based on a miserable idea. In order for it to be an ideal, it should set its vision on a nobility and maturity on the social level. Each ideal is a goal but not every goal is an ideal. Goals can be of lower levels; ideals cannot. As the sum total of the wisdoms above, together with the brain and the heart, we are the ones who demonstrate the “hows” and the “whys” in a unified system. It is our job to embroider the cause of Islam into things and events. We are the unique example. We are the Great East-Ibda. Within this framework, I would like to present my work: The Grandsublime State; and the New World Order!

As a matter of fact, referencing to the “Grandsublime State” corresponds to the main aim in composing and the principal pillar collecting all the contents of the Ideological Knitting of the Great East. Nevertheless, it was lost—all was put asleep—just as if one of our belongings was right before us a moment ago and was gone a moment later. I am taking control of it and re-awakening it, and would like to explain it in the metaphor of the explosion of a bomb—already made to use—in a public place. With the expectation that it shall be a completely new view in terms of the course of events and the concrete aims and objectives of the Islamist struggle.

The New World Order is shaped like a bobble of ideas and institutions, from democracy and liberalism to the United Nations and the European Common Market, it is a hegemonic system in which the United States and Europe, although competitively, share the view they have on countries like ours; that of pariah status. Of course, we respond, “No!” to this view, and instead we propose that this “New World Order” begins from our own country!

Chapter I

According to the type of Community, we had rather use the word “community” than “nation,” since the latter is described in such a large scope as religious unity, cultural unity, lingual unity, racial unity and common geography, and because its meaning changes from view to view. The first type of state is based on this integral aspect which shapes it and is divided in two: homogeneous and heterogeneous.

Homogeneous, meaning “the same kind” or “having the same kind of the others.” We are aware of the fact that the meaning of the phrase, “the same kind,” can be interpreted in many different ways considering the elements mentioned above. Therefore, in our case, “homogeneous community” can be described as the community whose ways of interaction have been formed in a different way from ones not belonging to that community.

Describing the type of state as homogeneous and heterogeneous is very important particularly in terms of International Law. According to International Law, this issue, besides being first a matter of theory, is closely related to the ones which appear in practice as directly imposed legal sanctions. For instance:
“A heterogeneous state is required to be controlled!”

According to its institutions, the structure and institutions of a state are not the same as each other. The physical conditions and historical events of the country play a major role in the establishment of a state. Therefore, in terms of these different structures, states are divided into two other types as simple states and united or combined states.

In the first type, which is the simple-unitary states, the execution of local affairs is usually left to secondary institutions (those of a second degree; for instance, municipal organizations). Issues directly related to the public order are handled by a single authority which is centralized. Needless to say, simple-unitary states can be both homogeneous and heterogeneous and can be different from each other in terms of the degree of authority endowed to local administrative units.

The second type of state is the united-combined states, which are formed as a “united-unified” entity or a “community-combination.” According to some experts of law and political science, any state which can be classified in this group is also called “state of the states.” This can be considered in two parts:
“The states in such states are embodied as a union which are united/unified or as a community-combination which came together.”
The states which are “united” are divided into two: “personal unification” or “real unification.” Similarly, the states embodied as a “community-combination” are divided into two: confederations and federal states.

The “personal unifications” are two different states united under the authority of the president of the state. In other words, the connection creating such unification is derived not from International Law but from the inner particularities and laws in the given state. In these unions, relationships of rulers such as inheritance, marriages and donations appear, and the state is attached to the union and preserves its international entity. In other words, as two different governments and regimes, one of these states can be ruled by absolutism, and the other by a constitutional regime. The most significant aspect of such states under the name of “personal unification” is their nonessential properties and temporariness, and the fact that the right of each state to dominate and rule is fully reserved.

As for the “real unifications,” some of the states described as unified are not only united by the presence of the ruler but have also formed a union based on codes of law in relation to each other. These unified states are autonomous in internal organizations, codes and administration, whereas they are subjected to the same code when it comes to foreign affairs and territorial defense. Each state in a unified state has its own codes, legislative commission, parliament, flag and official language, yet foreign affairs are handled by a single, central authority. Although the administrative forms of these states in a single union are different from each other, they are perceived as a single state by others. The most important point here is the fact that a real union cannot form a single state. What we see here is that two or more “ruling-autonomous” states are united. In practice, they represent one single international entity, and as a result, cannot declare war or practice peace on their own. Their consulates and embassies are common ones. Political agreements can be signed only by the union. The liabilities regarding foreign countries are the concern of the union itself. As long as there are strong connections in a real unification, unlike the personal unification, the decline of or the changing of the ruler does not destroy the union itself.

States which came together in a combination are the second type of combined or united states: they are the states that constitute confederations or federal states.

Confederations are entities of independent states, which preserve their unique qualities, coming together for a common and limited purpose. The confederations formed throughout history are now lost and insufficient to cater to the concept of the state. Some experts in law, in respect to this point, claim that a confederation is not a state; that there is only a law-bound relationship between its states; that it has no distinct community and territory, and therefore cannot be described as a state. They point out that each member state in a confederation has an international entity and a state entity. The limited quality of the purpose in a confederation preserves the specific entity of the states which formed it. Throughout history, there have been a number of states which joined a confederation: on condition that they keep their state entity. The major organ of the confederation is the congress or the Diet, and the decisions they make are agreements rather than codes or laws. The confederation has neither a common nationality, nor a common territory, or a government ruling all the others attached to it. It can be likened to an alliance, since it is a political association rather than a legal one. However, we should remember that the institutions in confederations generally called congress or Diet never existed in alliances.

The second type of the states that came together is federal states. This type is formed when a group of countries unite and the states of these countries take part in the government of the federal state and have a common constitution. The autonomy of the member states is much greater than the authority given by a central government. It is also superior to that type of authority. Although a confederation is a kind of association or an alliance, a federal state is a state per se. The confederation is based on agreements whereas a federal state has a constitution. In other words, a confederation is an institution of International Law, while a federal state is the outcome of Constitutional Law. In a confederation, the member state’s international entity is reserved, whereas in a federation this entity is the entity of the federal state and although the “state” title of the member states are kept as it is, they cannot represent an autonomous dominance. In a confederation there is no group to execute power over all the others, yet in the federal states the constitution and the government are unified. Eventually, there is one single nationality in a federal state and the citizens of all the member states are “given” the same nationality.

With respect to their sovereignty, we can divide states into two: independent states and semi-independent states.

Independent states: These are those that have domestic and international sovereignty. They enjoy their sovereignty rights freely, without any restrictive clause or conditions. Aside from the issues related to limiting the sovereignty and power in accordance with the objective rules of internal and external public law, the reality is this: there are so many seemingly independent states that only few are so. Therefore, the intensity of independence is in accordance with the concrete evidence of power of sovereignty and one can just forget about the rest.

Semi-independent states: The states which are not fully equipped with the prerogatives and authoritative power fall into this categorization. These are generally states which have partially or completely lost their external sovereignty or the ones which have not gained it yet. These states can be grouped into three classes:
a) Some states, through an agreement, are placed under the protection of another, more powerful country. Of course, this protection makes both parties endowed with liabilities as well as rights, which, however, never means a legal equality between them. The protective state always has a superior position in international relations. This way is no more than an effort to legitimize its imperialist and colonialist politics. The practices of these states demonstrate to us that these states always consider themselves as having a higher level of civilization and that they protect an inferior state with a lower level of civilization than their own and they always use them as a means to a specific end of their own. (Indeed, we believe that these issues cannot be settled with phrases like “higher civilization” and “lower civilization”, to put it simply, we opt for using “higher civilization” for the powerful and “inferior civilization” for the weaker one.) Although the state which was protected by another has its own constitution and major representative body, they are not fully given the right to sovereignty.
b) Some states may have been separated from the one they once had been subjected to. Yet, they may still feel attached to it. Such countries are called subjected countries. In international affairs, the subjected state is represented by the state to which it is subjected. In comparison to the protected states, subjected states are exposed to more restrictions and they have no external sovereignty at all.
c) Mandated territories are a type of state which appeared after the First World War. It means the authority given to a country to mandate in a given country or countries in the name of the League of Nations and under the control of the League of Nations to carry out some particular functions. It could be similar to the practice of tutelage in Private Law, so the practice can be called an international institution of tutelage. In some ways it is different than the practice of protective governments. The protection of the protective countries is based on an agreement with the protected country; yet the authority of mandate given to a country is a duty. Indeed, mandate administration only indicates an attempt at explanation to legitimize European colonial and imperial politics. Nevertheless, because of the powerlessness of the League of Nations, it was replaced by the United Nations and the concept of mandated territories had its place in the past. In the United Nations Constitution dated 26 June 1945, an “international protection regime” was described. It was like mandating regimes but with a wider scope of rights.

When we categorize states with respect to the “source of power”, we usually see monarchic states/monarchies in the first group and republican administrations in the second.

In a monarchy, the power stems from one individual. The source or owner of power is the ruler, as long as he is alive, and his will is the unique source of power.

There were different types of monarchies in history. In some monarchic regimes the ruler was seen as divine or as the representative of Allah. Such regimes were called Theocratic monarchies. The fact that the Ottoman Sultans were regarded as the “shadow of Allah” on the Earth and that the Caliph of Allah’s prophet, which we will consider later, is an example of the same concept of theocratic monarchy.

In some monarchic regimes, the ruler is the owner of the state. The ruler has property rights both in his country and in other subjected ones since they are attached to his country. The real owner of the land is the ruler. This is also called a patrimonial monarchy and it was seen in oriental monarchies as well as in the last period of the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages (with some differences). In this type of state, the ruler is not an agency of a state; because the state was not yet an independent and sufficiently legal entity.

In the third type of monarchy, the ruler is not over and outside the reality of state, but is an element and agent of the state's reality. We can mention absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy in this category.

With respect to the type of enthronement of the ruler and the scope of his authority, the monarchies can be further categorized:
a) Elective monarchy: In such states, as the name suggests, the ruler is selected by the people. However, unlike republican states, the right to rule that belongs to the ruler is not for a specific period of time but instead during his lifetime and these elective monarchies usually change, in time, into hereditary monarchies. This type of state can be seen, for example, in the histories of Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. The most familiar type of monarchical state regime is the hereditary monarchy. In such monarchies, the candidate-ruler should ascend from a dynasty and is supposed to have occupied a position beforehand.
b) With respect to the scope and limit of the ruler’s authority, the monarchical states can be divided into absolute and constitutional monarchies:
Absolute monarchy: In this way, the right to rule of the ruler is not limited by any law. The ruler is the first and foremost and principal agency. There is no constitution which can bind the ruler in the usual sense and way in states administered by such a regime. In some cases, the only sanction that can be imposed on the ruler is religious or moral. Yet, such regimes are different from despotism in its compliance with some of the customary rules. For instance, in France, there were customary requirements called fundamental law of the monarchical kingdom. Although it cannot be analyzed in such classical schemes, there were major rules in the Ottoman State as well, and during the period of decline, when these rules were disobeyed, the consequences of this disobedience are today known to all.
Constitutional monarchy: In this type of state, the rights of the ruler are restricted within the law. Here, the state has some first degree political organs over the ruler like the public and its representatives in the parliament. In short, there is an order of public law, sanctions and a constitution which restrict the rights and authority of the ruler. Besides, some of the contemporary monarchies are seen to have left room to democratic and parliamentary systems.

The second group in the categorization according to the source of power is republican administrations. Here the dominant power belongs to many people. In countries which accepted this type of regime, instead of the real entities, committees and legal entities are the first degree political agents. And according to the significance of the first degree agents, republics are further divided into two as aristocratic and democratic.

In an aristocratic state, a specific social class dominates others due to reasons related to birth, age, knowledge, wealth, industrial and commercial professionalism, and so on. This privileged class is the first degree organ of the state and the function of legislation also belongs to them. The authority to execute is given to either an individual or a committee. Yet, the executive organ in this system is obviously not the ruler. No matter what type of dominance or government is employed, the right to dominate, in aristocratic regimes, does not belong to one person but to a class of a number of legally privileged people.

Unlike aristocratic administration, in the states administrated by democracy, there is no privileged group or class dominant over others. It is replaced with a “community-nation.” In this type of state, either the community itself functions as the legislative and executive organs or that authority is given to a committee. In the former case there is “direct democracy” and in the latter there is “representative democracy”. No doubt, taking the populations into account, it is practically impossible to apply direct democracy in our age. In between these two types, another one to reconcile the disadvantages and requirements of them can be seen as “semi-direct democracy”. In this system, the public selects its own representatives as in the other type, but despite the parliament with its right to legislate and be a decision-maker, the last word is reserved, again, by the public. The public enjoys this authority through ways such as referendums, vetoes, and proposing a new rule. Switzerland and the United States can be given as exemplification of states enjoying semi-direct democracy.

“Nations have the right to determine their own fate,” which is an article of the declaration issued by the president of the United States Woodrow Wilson during the First World War, announced to the entire world that democracy is not an internal regime but the fundamental part of international relations.

In the introductory stage of the “Grandsublime State”, let us consider the question; “What is presidency?” Since the meaning of the “head of the state” or “president” is very close in content to the “types of states”, it is included in this chapter.

Faithful to absolute truth, distinguished with his sense of restricted freedom, and in compliance with the supreme justice criterion in any case, let us for a moment leave the ideal president aside. He has always been in our minds. In reality, however, we can consider two categories, which we can formulate from what we have seen so far: Totalitarian and democratic samples. All those having significance from a central entity to the public or from the public to the central entity…the king, shah, president, and the president of the council of state are in this category. As for the inner strata of this classification, there are three classes as follows: “puppets, puppeteers, and glorious mannequins.”

Puppets... Poor beings compelled to please others; to play a given role in the hands of major parties and factions, be it a king or a president. The King of Italy during the period of Mussolini or Sultan Resat during the period of the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress, as well as some of the Soviet Russian presidents et cetera et cetera.

Puppeteers... All the heads of absolutist regimes and the ones who use their circles or parties or factions as pawns, be it in the sincerity of a totalitarian regime or under the lie of democracy, and be it as a king or as a president of a state. Examples are Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Franco in Spain, Tito in Yugoslavia, Qaddafi (only a draft) in Libya and Inonu in our country, etcetera…

Glorious mannequins... After sufficiently sticking to all the rules and administrative and social institutions, particularly in a democratic order, now there are the ones who believe that their wills are only so-called committed to the execution of state affairs, yet who are incapable of performing any governmental duty. They are unpretentious, unassertive people, beyond any party or faction. The best examples are the British kings and the presidents of some thoroughly democratic and civilized countries, particularly, presidents of France and Italy etcetera.

The cacophony of authority between the presidency of the state and the presidency of the government in the state system caused Americans to unite both positions, so that the decentralized authority could be collected and balanced by a focused power of authority.
As it can be seen, eventually everything comes down to being a focus personality. In this case, the president has to perform a type of artistic talent; keeping a balance between a democratic order and an authoritarian order and meeting the requirements of both qualities. This type is represented by De Gaulle of France.
That is, personality, “central (focus) personality”:
A personality bends and twists all other shapes and opens the way for the representation of truth and right, beyond all shapes. The “focus personality” is the one who treats the shapes as they deserve to be treated and the one who shapes them even when they are already shaped.

Chapter II

Although the meanings of “the way to administrate” and the “type of power” of a state seem to be interdependent and the same as each other, they are as different from each other as a garden fence from a gardening style, in which one determines the other and one depends on the other. However, both can draw various compositions other than the routine dependency. Our type of state is Grandsublime. And the government is the Grandsublime-type government, one which is selected by the Committee of Sublimes. While considering this issue, revealed completely and waiting to be realized in a regime as an integral system, that is, in the Ideological Knitting of the “Great East,” we have to represent our case from the reverse point of view, so that it can be distinguished practically and critically by others. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to benefit from the possibilities provided by the general view of “internal” and “external” public law, and therefore to set up a chapter with the title Public Order.

Public Law, within a traditional classification, can be divided into Internal Public Law and External Public Law. Internal Public Law determines and arranges the relationships between the law itself and the individuals comprising it, arranging the relationships between different parts of the state. External Public Law is the law that deals with the codes which arrange the relationships between states themselves.

Although it might seem a bit off-topic, the External Public Law is also called States Law, General Law of States, International Law, Law of Nations and so on. Internal Public Law, on the other hand, is divided into different branches such as Principal Organization Law, Administrative Law, Penal Code, Procedural Law, and so on. The newest and most independent branch of the Internal Public Law is General Public Law.

Within its scope, the General Public Law covers the root of the state, its historical growth within positive and theoretical terms, its elements, ways, organs, functions and issues between individuals and itself; to give explanations in a general and collective way, in a wider framework, without restricting ourselves to a particular state. The purpose of this branch of Internal Public Law is, without restricting ourselves to Positive Law and by keeping away from all sorts of rules, only to attempt to determine and describe what the state is consisted of and to reveal the principles adopted by any state as a whole.

We now consider the Principal Organizational Law, which composes another branch of the Internal Public Law. According to the ideas asserted in the field of doctrine, the Principal Organization Law demonstrates to us a particular state’s principles and institutions which are connected to its main organization. The Principal Organizational Law, studying all the codes comprising and ordering main political and social institutions, is a branch of law that attempts to explain the structure of a particular state. The Principal Organizational Law, which studies the principles related to the institution of a particular state, determines the organizations and authorities of public power and engages in public forces and their relationships. This branch of law brings about the shape of the state and determines its structure and specifies the relationships between the forces in that state, and defines the rights of individuals in the state. Through which organ the legislation, execution and judicial forces are represented is again defined by this branch of law.

Natural Law; with respect to this point of view, law is changeable and proportional and by its very nature is not national. This law is “absolute” and continuous and applied to everyone equally and it should be called “ideal” law; for Positive Law must reach, at least approach, this concept. In other words, this is called “justice.” This concept includes a law that should be applied to every individual, in every society and country at every time and it is based on the idea that “the universal order is a product of the human mind and nature, and it has existed before any sort of personal intervention.” This view, which was constructed within a belief that it is necessary to explain the universe as a whole and which takes existing truths in human nature into account, is perceived as too personality-oriented and spiritual in a period when Marxism was too widespread and popular in explaining the universe as a whole. It is refused by the “realist view,” reacting against classical views on the grounds that Natural Law cannot exist and that law would be changed in accordance with time and place.

It should be known that not all theocratic consideration is Islamist, and not all spiritual consideration is theocratic. Therefore, although the theories on universe, on universe-human or human-human relationships express individual truths and are based on evidence, in the end they will prove to be powerless before the “Requirement of Absolute Idea” and the “weakness of focusless induction.” The reason why we state this is to indicate that “universal order” expresses a self-evident truth and a need and also the consideration of “Natural Law” has nothing to do with the view of the world we have. The reason why we mention the “realist view,” which refuses Natural Law, is to draw attention to the false synthesis which is formed today between Natural Law and this view which supports the idea that “the weak should yield to the stronger” and which also believes the birth of a state is realized only through force and struggle. The synthesis under consideration is never a philosophical view, a social or political theory, philosophy of law or a theory related to any field of law. It is only the mindset that the United Nations organization perpetuates as a so-called legal institution that is directly and currently legitimate in practice.

The mindset perpetuated by the United Nations organization is the main issue of this chapter, titled “Public Order.” Before we consider it, let us briefly mention the rise and significance of the state from the “realist viewpoint”:
“It is an unchanging law of nature that some human beings suppress others, the strong ones oppress the weak. State institutions can be explained by this law of nature, which cannot be changed by human will. From the theory of ‘force and struggle’ in the ‘realist view’ on the rise of state, one can derive another fact. Indeed, state, by its very nature, enables the pressure of the strong on the weak and the exploitation of the weak and it is an organization which maintains the authority of the winners over the defeated. Thanks to this organization, the strong ones manage to protect their position and the winners maintain their privileges. It goes even further that law as an expression of this power and coercion is merely a set of codes that is built in order to maintain this 'pressure' and ‘exploitation’ and to prevent the possible resistance against it.”

Beside the realist view, let us remember another finding which, on one hand, supports it, yet, on the other, announces a thorough failure in the name of law:
"Today, the gap between fact and law, text and spirit, regulation and practice is widening more and more. Most of the constitutions which exist in the world are nothing but deceptive appearances: the regimes described in them have nothing to do with what is actually going on in the particular country. The constitution seems to function as a screen which hides the existing regime in power!"

We have already mentioned the declaration made by the United States President Wilson during the First World War. The article in the declaration, which states; “Nations have the right to determine their own fate,” took the notion of democracy further than being an internal regime and announced it to the entire world as the basis of international relations. In fact, after the Versailles Peace Treaty, great powers made some amendments in their government types on the basis of democracy; the newly constructed states adopted this regime as the basis for their political structure, and thus, influences of democratic principles began to be seen in the relationships between states.

The reason behind the general impact of democracy after the First World War is indeed the vacuum caused by structures which lost their social and political function after the removal of the monarchies; and, to tell the truth, democracy, as well, was not an appropriate proposal with which to fill this gap. Within the division we create between internal and external public order, the emphasis was on the state and on an external public order as a means to harmonize the relationships between states. Nevertheless, today the emphasis seems to be on a type or external public order as “the public order per se.” Now, instead of an external public order between states, in comparison to the state, the idea is the world society order, in which there are states. Aside from the pleasant sounding, but unsubstantiated, parts of the issue like “peace” or “brotherhood,” there is one important aspect of it that should not escape attention: that this is a product of a Western society structure formulated as “Greek Reason, Roman order and Christian morality.” The reason why we draw attention to this point is not that we refuse a culture different than our own, but that the United Nations organization, which is the concrete expression of all above and which represents oligarchy within a direct contention of monarchy, is in fact a means of exploitation of the countries which fall outside of this structure.

Let us pause here for a minute and focus on the first article among the purposes of the United Nations organization:
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”
While considering the “Mandate regime,” we mentioned the following paragraph on the “League of Nations,” which was established after the First World War, and was predecessor to the United Nations organization, which was founded on 24 October 1945:
“Some states, through an agreement, are placed under the protection of another, more powerful country. Of course, this protection makes both parties endowed with liabilities as well as rights, which, however, never means a legal equality between them. The protective state always has a superior position in international relations. This way is no more than an effort to legitimize its imperialist and colonialist politics. The practices of these states demonstrate to us that these states always consider themselves as having a higher level of civilization and that they protect an inferior state with a lower level of civilization than their own and they always use them as a means to a specific end of their own.”
Since the day it was founded, the United Nations organization has done nothing but declared that it was regretfully sorry when there was injustice or disagreement which served for the interest of the powerful states. What else should it do? In this organization, which became an oligarchy and the stage for a monarchical power struggle, it is impossible to do something more than simply frown at the injustices. In order to understand the roles of the small, low profile cast of countries within the fight of powerful states in the world scene, it is enough to look at the structure of the UN Security Council and consider the way in which it makes decisions:
“The Council is comprised of 15 members and five of them are permanent members. The permanent members are the United States of America, The United Kingdom: Great Britain and Northern Ireland, People’s Republic of China, France and Russia. All the rest of the countries are selected as members for only two years’ time.”
What is the privilege of a permanent member, really? Except the procedural issues, all of the decisions are taken by the positive votes of the nine members, along with the permanent ones. Thus, if a prospective decision is to the disadvantage of one of these member states, the state can enjoy its right to veto the proposal and prevent it. As the states are called after their type of regimes, one could thus call the United Nations Organization as the “Dictatorship of Pigs.”

Although in this obscure setting of paradoxical and somehow overlapping clauses, one can talk about the “the new face of imperialism”, a world-surrounding “public order” as a monarchic contention, based on an oligarchy between the states. No one can say that there is an “International Law;” the “public order” under consideration is an expression of a de facto, not de jure, situation. The United Nations is not an organization which has been constructed under the light of universal principles of law or one which helps maintain these principles, but it is an organization which tries to screen this de facto situation abusing those principles. When the principles of democracy and universal principles of law are regarded as of equal value, one can easily solve the puzzling question of why some power centers play the role of democracy's apostles!

We have already mentioned that Western culture and civilisation were formulated as “Greek Reason, Roman order and Christian morality.” In addition to this, the point underlined by a Western thinker in the Ideological Knitting of Great East is as follows:
“The West is wherever Western thinking and lifestyle have reached!”
Directly or through the United Nations, the action by the power centers against some countries as intervener in the name of the universal principles of law, and the overlapping “principles of democracy,” which is also the proposal of a social and political order which overlaps with the above; in their attempt to Westernize all others as the “true representatives” of the West, it is no different than creating a ghetto around a big city. Note that; part of this “junk yard” of nations, just like the masses torn from their villages and accumulated into the ghetto, broken from its own culture and left rootless as fertilizer for the land of Western culture, is seen in this distinguished mansion of the world appropriate for the role of, or candidate of, the driver, gardener, cook, watch guard or dishwasher. Some of them, though, are very eager to play their roles and simply become the victims of an arbitrary “no!” The system they called the “New World Order” is in fact a caste system which defines classes in this case between nations not by the use of cruel walls but by the use of insurmountable chalk lines! This defining of classes is just like the caste system in India, in which it is impossible to transcend from one level of class to another. Taking this Indian social example of insurmountable castes, we demonstrate why the West imposes its way of living and thinking on others, and what all these places actually meant for the West in the Western “integration.”

International Law is an issue that should be considered as a separate topic. One side of the issue is related, under the light of philosophical views, to the general and particular aspects of law; the other side is connected with the statement and interpretation of customary practices in international relations and protocols. Although, theoretically, it is possible to say that there is an international law dealing with such and such issues, it is impossible to say that the way they deal with things has anything to do with a mature branch of science describing general and valid judgments with specific methods and formation. And, practically, we see neither a legislative act describing general and valid laws, nor an executive act relevant to it. As for the United Nations, this organization is not a legislative organ brought about by a constitution covering public order, nor does it bring about a constitution itself. Moreover, it has neither executive power nor coercive power, which is subjected to that executive power, to implement the sanctions they plan. Everything we say about the United Nations overtly demonstrates that there is no international law. As for the situation and structure of the Security Council, in comparison with the General Assembly of the organization, the organ is seen to have a government-like position, formed by elements of self-interest, and as an oligarchic structure. The effective forces embodying the United Nations have already showed that they have no legal “subject-person” identity with specific rights and liabilities, but that they have prerogatives to veto when they dislike a situation, and they can employ their power to show an understanding of “the stronger you are, the more rights you’ll have.” The forceful applications, on the other hand, carried out on behalf of the United Nations, are based not on the coercive power or an intention with an idealist decision-realization, but rather on the power and interest particular to the strong and bullying ones who decide arbitrarily and always to achieve and ensure their own advantage. As a result, the United Nations organization was embodied on the absence of International law and the decisions it has taken and its applications are not at all qualified to be considered within the rules of equity (law).

We have mentioned above that universal principles of law and principles of democracy seem to implicitly have similar or even equivalent meaning today. In addition to this, we have said that the United Nations is merely a means for the end of “world public order,” inspired by the above principles, and that the United Nations does not have a consistent structure either democratically or legally. In this ground of “world public order,” which the situations “in practice” are more valid than the ones “based on law”, especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which for a time had a run at being world-leader, the United States of America now seems to be fully advantageous with their so called “New World Order.” All of this acts as a panorama in which the quality of “monarchy” we labeled “world public order,” is ever more obvious!

Let us now shortly mention the topic of the “universal principles of law.” The rights and freedoms covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations may give us an idea about the “universal principles of law” of which they are the reflection. The document, which actually includes moral liabilities rather than legal ones, is a political advice under the disguise of “morality.” It serves the “world public order” having the quality of a situation “in practice” as we mentioned before, which can be felt in earnest. At first glance, one might have the impression that we are describing a desert temperature in a polar region, but we will explain this idea. Before we are impressed by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations, we look at the issue of protection of human rights in the United Nations Charter, and only then we will see by which centers it was imposed in the course of history!

The date when the International Law started to take up an interest in human rights comes around the second half of the 20th century. Until then, communities under the administration of a state had to earn and defend their own rights and liberties, with their own efforts, and struggled without the aid of an international association. When any particular rights of the individual are violated in any country, the world of states was inactive, if not indifferent (many examples for it can be seen in the history of Islam.) For it was widely believed that, as a principle, the International law addresses the relationships between the states, and thus had no right to involve itself with a relationship between a state and its subjects. Such a sharp division between the International law and internal law, and the exclusion of individual from the scope of international law, was a result of the doctrine that claimed exact ruling of the state, which was acclaimed unanimously. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been radical changes in the international law; then had started to be directed towards humans and individuals. It was eventually believed and understood that international law cannot continue to be disinterested in the fate of communities; that the protection of individual freedom and human rights cannot be just left to national rules and regulations, and that the international law has now to compensate for this belated understanding. Abandoning the idea of “ruling of the state only” has changed the position of the individual before international law. The issue of protecting human rights was taken up especially after the Second World War with the founding of the United Nations. At a point where contrasting intentions, i.e. where political interests and idealist thoughts overlap, some made statements like; “The Second World War was actually an independence war and was fought in order to protect people against dominance and fear.” However, this is nothing but romantic idealism. In an environment where the issues concerning human and society require “a new understanding” in terms of the necessity of internal and external public order, it is extremely controversial that the political reflection and political positioning of the understandings which were to meet the needs and to settle the issues. We shall later give an account of the evaluation of the Great East concerning the Second World War. “The Second World War was actually an independence war and was fought in order to protect people against dominance and fear.” Roosevelt, President of the United States of America and Churchill, British Prime Minister, made a point about this in the Atlantic Charter, issued on 14 August 1941, and in the declaration published by the United Nations on 01 January 1942 it was explicitly stated:
“The Governments signatory hereto, (…) Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands…”
Some people even thought that the raison d’etre of the United Nations was to accomplish those goals. The San Francisco Conference valued human rights more, and as a result, although the Covenant of the League of Nations had not included an article directly related to the human rights, the United Nations Charter covered topics on human rights and fundamental freedoms in seven different places. A foreign professor made a point about this:
“Respect for fundamental human rights depends so much on maintaining international public order that the United Nations Charter placed this principle at the top of its preamble and proclaimed to the world and confirmed that it made it the major axiom. In case this principle is violated, it will be a direct threat on the common peace.”
However, it is pointed out that the phrases used in the articles of the UN Charter relevant to human rights are so obscure that one could be suspicious of its quality. Indeed, the charter is about “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms,” “ensuring to all of them the rights and benefits,” “assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,” and “promoting universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” Thus, the use of verbs like promoting, encouraging, and assisting, led some experts of law to regard such clauses in the agreement as guiding principles. Apart from the ones who disagree that the clauses relevant to human rights are merely moral liability and their comments on “some clauses in the charter,” the conclusion they reached is important in demonstrating the legal and logical disguise of the force which has considerable weight in world politics:
“Member states must, by law, respect human rights and fundamental freedoms all around the world. Here it is really legal liability, not moral principle as claimed. Adopting this view means it is admitted that issues related to human rights and fundamental freedoms are not included among the responsibilities of national authorities!”

The United Nations organization, through its Commission on Human Rights, prepared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly to the world on 10 December 1948. The content of this declaration consists of a preamble and four categories on rights and freedoms:
“The first category includes the classical individual rights and freedoms which became traditional following the French Revolution in 1789. The second category covers family rights, the third political rights and public freedoms and the fourth category covers economic and social rights.”
What has caused discussion was not the content of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but its legal status. The text under consideration is not a contract or an agreement but a declaration, and was accepted and announced by the United Nations General Assembly, but was not signed and verified by the member states as per the constitutional procedures. At this point, does it have any value that binds member states and makes them liable by law, or is it merely some pieces of advice not necessarily to be obeyed (by law), or a document covering some moral liabilities? As for the answer to these questions, even the persons who took part in the preparation of the document are not in agreement. In fact, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, President of the Commission on Human Rights, asserted that the declaration had only spiritual value, whereas René Cassin, another member of the same commission, claimed that the declaration is a detailed and improved part of the United Nations Charter including human rights in positive international law. If this view is accepted, now that the clauses in the United Nations Charter are in fact liabilities by law, then the declaration which is a detailed and improved part of it should be legally compelling and binding for member states. Apart from the debates on its legal status, a sample practice relevant to the Declaration in the United States of America almost verifies our cultural and political considerations on the “New World Order”:
“In the United States of America, the Court of Appeals in California decided in a case called “Sei Fuji” that a law dated 1913, which deprived Japans possession of land, is against the clauses in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and avoided applying the law, and thus demonstrated the fact that the Declaration is superior to the national law.”
This decision is apparently against the interests of the United States of America and really seems to exalt the honor of law, but we will write in a more detailed fashion on the reason why we found the decision as a documentary for our “cultural” and “political” considerations. Both the case law mentioned above and the comments, asserting that the articles on human rights and freedoms of the United Nations Charter are “liabilities to be obeyed by law,” should be understood within this framework (some points briefly mentioned before will be repeated).

“Respect for fundamental human rights depends so much on maintaining international public order that the United Nations Charter placed this principle at the top of its preamble and proclaimed to the world and confirmed that it made it the major axiom. In case this principle is violated, it will be a direct threat on the common peace.” Right beside this comment, here is another view:
“The statement used in the article of the UN Charter relevant to the human rights is so obscure that one can get suspicious about its quality!”
Indeed, the charter is about “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms,” “ensuring to all of them the rights and benefits,” “assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,” and “promoting universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” Thus, the use of verbs like promoting, encouraging, and assisting, led some experts of law to regard such clauses in the agreement as guiding principles. Besides this one, here is another, but opposite, one:
“Although we admit that the expressions used here are ambiguous, we do believe that the articles related to human rights in the Charter are not merely moral liabilities. In order to demonstrate that they are rules by law, and binding to member states, we can explain through reading articles 55 and 56 of the Charter.”
Article 55, item C contains the following idea:
“(…) the United Nations shall promote: universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
Article 56 states that:
“All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.”
Let us analyze these two articles together, instead of separating them:
“Article 55, different from others, makes the United Nations bear the responsibility of promoting actual respect for human rights, making use of the verb promote. Also, with Article 56, the members pledge [themselves] to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the United Nations to accomplish the goals in the Article 55. The article 56 contains three liabilities: on individual act, collective act and on collaboratively with the UN.”
The first item of Article 55, “(…) the United Nations shall promote”: “a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;” the second item; “b) solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and” and the third item; “c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” The objectives stated in the first and second clauses are impossible to be realized individually by the states. On the contrary, they have to act collaboratively and cooperatively with the organization. However, the third one is an objective which can be attained individually by states. A foreign professor agreeing with this comment on the third clause states that:
“Then, while Article 56 points out that states can act on their own or collectively in cooperation with the organization, it must have meant that the states pledge themselves to act in compliance with and according to the instructions by the organization; and in order to attain the goals in the Article 55, the states pledge themselves to act individually if they can attain it on their own, or cooperatively if it needs collaboration.”
However there are some authors who oppositely claim that Article 56 does not bind any state. For example:
“The liability born by Article 56 is relevant and limited to the cooperation with the United Nations; the way and the content of this cooperation will be determined by the government of each member state.”
The evidence given by the ones who refuse such a comment on Article 56:
“If the way and the content of this cooperation are determined by the government of each member state, then there will be such a reasoning: The states, as the members of the United Nations, will be liable to work cooperatively to provide respect for the human rights; but when considered individually, they will be free to violate the same rights in their own countries. The states will be held responsible, as per Article 56, for facilitating the respect for the human rights but they will not at all take it into account when they act individually. Thus, a state, without being regarded as a violator of the clauses of the Charter, will be seen as a fervent defender and supporter of fundamental freedoms, yet at the same time will be able to destroy all these freedoms in its own country and to apply violence and pressure on its people. Let us quickly state that, the member states, while they act as members, are to facilitate by law the respect for fundamental freedoms, then the state by law, is liable to do the same in its own country. For it is impossible to imagine a state which maintains human rights in other countries but violates them in its own country. In other words, these are all liabilities by law, not just moral principles.”
To adopt this view compels one to admit that the issues related to human rights and fundamental freedoms are not included in the national scope of authority of states. The reflection of this acceptance on the world scene is that a prerogative group in the UN, for the interest of their own, can intervene into the affairs of weaker states with this as their defense. In other words, they can take the advantage of their (superior) position.

In the universal world order, especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the most serious rival of the United States of America is the “United Europe”, which is (at least most of its population) their ancestors, with shared spiritual and ideological qualities. In addition to the fact that they have a peculiar social structure, the progenitor Europe and the progeny United States of America represent separate influential and competitive bases despite their identical bases in terms of culture. Although today Europe does not seem to be very orderly because of different countries and conditions of competition, what is expected to be realized step by step is the ideal: a political union. One of the most important steps of this is the establishment of the European Economic Community and Customs Union appearing as the predecessor of the European Union. In December 1994, when Turkey was not accepted into the European Customs Union, the reason for justifying their rejection which was given was human rights violations, about which Turkey faced some difficulties. This was because, in a general sense, they build their logic on the world public order and force others to play by their rules, in a specific sense, the concrete application of the same principles in the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, the explanation of Article 56 of the United Nations Agreement in accordance with this view:
“The issues relevant to human rights and fundamental freedoms are not included into the national scope of authority of a state. (Other states have the ability to intervene.)”
In a state, particularly in which there are different communities, one cannot object to this point with the principle of a state’s right to rule. The significance of the European Convention on Human Rights appearing directly beside it should be shown according to International Law in terms of international situation of real persons in a general sense and also according to its quality in terms of European public order.

The European Convention on Human Rights was prepared by the European Council. The Agreement issued by the Council as to who regards the principle of respect to human rights as a prioritized goal was signed on 4 November 1950 by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the member states. The validity of the Agreement depended on the confirmation of the 10 member states which later would be submitted to the General Secretariat of the European Council. All these conditions were met on 3 September 1953 and the agreement then became valid. The Turkish Grand National Assembly signed the agreement on 10 March 1954. The rights and freedoms stated in the European Convention on Human Rights are not different from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Declaration, yet the Convention was arranged and decided to protect not all the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Declaration, but the selected ones which could be immediately adopted and applied by all of the member states, which were stated in the Convention. The rights and freedoms that would be debatable were excluded from the Convention and the ones that are regarded as “common inheritance” remained as human rights and freedoms. The major difference between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights is in their legal status and their power as legal codes. In fact, the former was just a declaration and therefore its positive value was often controversial. The latter is a Convention and there is no question about whether it binds the member states that signed and confirmed it. The first article of the Convention explicitly states it:
“The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.”
The more concrete part of the European Convention on Human Rights, more concrete than the Declaration, are the two organs defined in Article 19. Article 19 and the other articles state; (Article 19:) “To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the present Convention, there shall be set up: 1. A European Commission of Human Rights hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’; 2. A European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court’.” (Article 20:) “The Commission shall consist of a number of members equal to that of the High Contracting Parties. No two members of the Commission may be nationals of the same state.” (Article 23:) “The members of the Commission shall sit on the Commission in their individual capacity.”, that is, the members of the Commission take part in the Commission as 'private persons', not as 'representatives of certain states.' (Article 24:) “Any High Contracting Party may refer to the Commission, through the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention by another High Contracting Party.” One can apply to the commission in case of violating the rights and freedoms in the Convention. (Article 25:) “The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe from any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation, by one of the High Contracting Parties, of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been lodged has declared that it recognizes the competence of the Commission to receive such petitions.” (Article 26:) “The Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognized rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was made.” (Article 25:) “The Commission shall only exercise the powers provided for in this article when at least six High Contracting Parties are bound by declarations made in accordance with the preceding paragraphs.” As it can be seen, in order to examine a petition from any individual, non-governmental organization or group of individuals, six High Contracting Parties should recognize the authority of the Commission. Since, years ago, the number of the states accepting this exceeded six, the Commission was put into effect. It shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention. So, it is understood that the Commission is not a judicial body; it does not take decisions on an issue, but does write reports on it. However, as the name suggests, the European Human Rights Court is a judicial body and “consists of a number of judges equal to that of the Members of the Council of Europe. No two judges may be nationals of the same state.” Only by member states or the Commission, a case can be brought to the Court, yet, to make the jurisdiction compulsory for a Contracting Party, this Party should have declared that they recognized the jurisdiction without any special agreement; that is, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited and restricted to the states that accept it with a declaration. There was a condition that in order for the Court to operate, such declarations should be made by at least eight states, and the Court still operates today. The Republic of Turkey also accepted and recognized the jurisdiction of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Court. Real persons considering construing and applying the Convention, can submit complaints to the Court, through the Commission, against their own states. The Court deals with the case and their judicial decision is definite. The parties pledge themselves to comply with the Court decision. Here are the opinions, which also lend evidence to our views on world public order/new world order. Of the law experts who seem pleased with the situation by nature of their profession, since it shows the formation of the “international law”:
“Thus, within the framework of the European Council, a very important step was taken towards the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and a significant stage was reached in reinforcing the real person’s place in International Law.”
The person who found his place in International Law has also become the material of the political formation and cultural structure of Western thinking and living, which gives International Law its color. As a result it should be seen that both a state and its subjects are to play the game through “clamping outside and reinforcing inside.”

As for our point of view on the Common Market; if you think that for a country that cannot value its human power and export workers to other countries like raw horse power is a success, the advantages of the Common Market can be thought of as a success to the same extent. In other words, it is a poison which is covered with a candy shell. The common market, which was a scheme comprising both Christianity and Jewish Genius as a mixture, is actually a kind of clamp; First, to make us sell our products at low prices and second, to devalue our currency. All this was already uncovered by the Great East Architect in 1971. Then we enable them to sell their products to us at high prices. The Common Market is a kind of clamp which applies pressure from both sides upon our country, which is structurally shocked by a transition between agricultural foundation and industrial foundation. The Market eventually deprives us of both and makes us submit to their will; not to mention the spiritual and political objectives behind this clamp. The Westerner, who played with us like guards playing with free-walking prisoners, now puts us behind the iron bars by our free will. Before we closely examine the European Union, to which some are asking accession in our name, with its own religious, cultural, economic and political aspects, let us learn our lesson from the words which became the axiom of French colonialism and which were uttered by de Gaulle, the French General and President:
“People in a country where the French culture has been made the dominant one are French!”

The European Community is a political description, and European Economic Community is a transitional step toward the European Community. The central (focus) personality representing the spirit of the European Community ideal, if you put it another way, is De Gaulle. When we look at his biography, his ideas, his ideals and his spiritual world, we see that there are so many lessons to learn from him:
“Before the First World War, he wrote a book in which he proposed his famous thesis: that the determining factor in the future will be armored and motorized squads, which will be the main forces of wars. His work was mocked in France, where literature was evaluated with a traditional mind. But his book was literally appreciated in Germany; in addition, it was used against France. When France was destroyed, De Gaulle was the unique one whose willpower remained standing. He founded and managed the “Free France” front and organization in England. Eventually he became the president of France, his main objective being to improve his country spiritually and economically. He exalted and helped further the ancient European civilization called “Greco-Roman,” which had been fostered in France. He was against the United States of America, the colossal supporter of the same civilization, who claimed to be anti-materialistic in idea but in practice materialist in their living. He was also against Soviet Union who were materialistic in idea but in fact “mystical” in their living. In order for Europe to be completely saved, according to De Gaulle, he believed that they should send a double army of crusaders to those seemingly opposite, but in fact equal, “soul-murderers.” The French industry improved and the French currency became more valuable, yet De Gaulle attached the greatest importance to spiritual dominance. He did not hesitate to place France, the center of secularism, under the spiritual and moral hegemony of the Catholic Church. Yet, when he was in the position to be the savior of the French, he applied for the French public’s vote to become more violent and authoritarian; but was denied by the French public who would not allow a mortal to be endowed with immortal privileges (Consider .……’s life! -Editor’s Note: The name mentioned in the original Turkish version has been the subject of a case before the Court according to the Turkish Penal Code; therefore, it has not been named here.-) He withdrew into solitude in his manor and passed away in a noble fashion as a faithful Catholic, away from official ceremonies, in a circle comprising his friends and members of the army, relatives and church members.
Remember (…) the dictator who was a spy for the English!

One of the main references of Western culture and civilization is Christianity, which is its moral basis. Once upon a time, hundreds of church officials came together with secularists in Lourdes in France and raised the following issue:
“Should the Church get involved in politics for the sake of Bible?”
This debate was covered by the mainstream media in France and became sensational news in the headlines. Here are some opinions about it:
“Can there be a church surrounding a number of classes struggling with one another? What would be the attitude of the Church towards the working class; while it was baptizing the bourgeois, that is, the capitalist class, who regard the working class with their sole aim of destroying them? What would be the attitude of the church before the cause of justice of Marxism and does being objective in such a case mean admitting the failure of Christianity? If, as “justice” ordered in the Bible, the Church takes place in this struggle for “justice,” would it be a politicized Church? In fact, one remembers what the Pope Paul XI says; “In this century, compassion, goodness and justice is nothing but political affairs!”
The answer from the Church to these questions and issue came as follows:
“Against every cause coming from doctrine, the Church should resist through its own doctrine bravely and honorably and it should be unstoppable! It should not be forgotten that a workers’ Church can be more Christian than yesterday’s bourgeois church. ‘Clericalism-the principles and power of the Church’ is strong enough to tolerate and answer to each and every accusation and point directed from both the right and left wings.”
And Cardinal Danielou’s thesis in the cradle of laicism, a requirement of Christianity by its nature:
“The close relationship and intimate correlation between faith and politics are as old as history itself. Christianity has both tasted the victory of and suffered from this unbreakable, inseparable relationship. Love, as the principal rule of Christianity, is the rarest shelter for those who suffered from hunger, thirst, cruelty and injustice. Jesus Christ from Nazareth came up with a method of continuous and endless revolution in order to cut the tumor of injustice between social classes which is the biggest problem today; and this method consisting of love and compassion was very well understood by the first Christians at that time. Let us wish that this method, which the Roman Empire aimed to destroy by fair means or foul, but which resulted in their own death, would hopefully be successful in being the superior authority of politics and society.”
On the one hand, Islam, which aspires to a world order, so as to solve individual and social issues, is excluded from peoples' life through aphorisms which state “religion and state affairs are separate issues.” In other words “laicism” is the axiom of the Kemalist regime or the success of Western imperialism, yet the Great East-Ibda's understanding, which organizes the purest Islam in order to settle individual and social problems, is seen as a pain in the neck to them. On the other hand, Christianity, which is today a spoiled version and which does not aspire to a world order, is being politicized, so that it could spread at all levels of life. The issue of religion, which is one of the dominant elements of the European Economic Community, consists actually of the moral basis of political “assimilation” ignored by our men, who are impious themselves, and who are solely interested in economic aspects.

Determining the common policy to be followed by six European countries in order to reach the “customs union,” in order to get rid of the obstacles at customs, which is one of the initial steps taken by European Economic Community, Common Market in 1970s, the President of the Common Market Execution Council, Ray, says in the Match; as a matter fact, the Match quotes as follows:
“Europe should begin new attempts in order to re-occupy its old position as the center of scientific research. Therefore, each European country in the Common Market circle has to consolidate their sources. New inventions are no more a result of an abstract and scientific effort; they have become the concrete and actual engines of economic power. Today, scientific inventions and discoveries seem to come more from the United States of America than from Europe. For a long time, it has been thought that the human ability to invent is working better and sharper in the United States of America than in Europe. According to the information given by Ben David (the well known Jewish economist) before the Council, ten of the twenty-nine industrial inventions which are imagined and drafted in the world of science are European and nineteen of them are from the United States. Seven of these inventions, which are at the imagination and drafting stage, have been realized in Europe. However, in the United States of America, the number is three times as much. Twenty-two inventions have been realized. At this point, the United States of America is ahead of us twice, or even three times, as much. While Europe is more successful than the US in the field of abstract science, the US is more successful than Europe on a concrete level! What could be the reason behind this? The answer is to be found by the philosophers in the course of history and material-spiritual structures! It is certain that in comparison to a shallow ‘American-type,’ the deep ‘European-type’ lacks something. These are five vital and major characteristics: Imagination, courage, aptitude, sense of future and a little bit of madness. Probably, this situation arises from Europe's aging and America's youth, and can be healed with a new ‘youth serum.’ The current European scientist and thinker refrains from using his brain as a laboratory device. However, the American attaches importance not to reclusive individual genius but to social utility and tools. French professor Alain Touraine says; ‘We are about to die just because the inconsiderate government deprives the field of scientific research of money, while making a colossal amount of investments in other fields!’ The situation has not yet been transferred to the state-consciousness of Europe, therefore, it cripples the society, and makes it rigid like concrete. That is why the objective of the Common Market is supposed to follow a complete strategy, on behalf of European civilization, within economic precautions and a thorough ideological plan.”
As it can be seen, the Common Market is not just a case of economic solidarity and joint forces. It is after a European hegemony: one with the objective of dominance and a totalitarian mind. The aim is to be a historical, social, spiritual, and even religious center, and for nations like us, we are supposed to have no other efforts but to protect ourselves before major world issues. We should not appeal to them to be treated like a material or spiritual colony. Rather, what we need to do is to stay in our corner quietly and try to preserve our personality. The only thing we can do is to try to be able to see the other side of the coin in those major issues related to the world and avoid being the victim of the attitudes that we can not control.

There is a work titled When Jerusalem Burned, written by two Jewish historians Jacques Lebar and Gerard Israel. In order to introduce the significance of the work, here is a cliché about its name:
“This absorbing and fascinating book, written by two historians, is the revival of the tragedy which brought about our civilization.”
In this book, after all the cruelties and invasions witnessed in Jerusalem in history, it is narrated that it was seized by Islam and had been hidden under a blanket for centuries and eventually Jews appeared as a “chosen people by God”(!) and the present Jews are narrated. Below is the criteria related to the social, cultural and moral structure of the European Economic Community, introduced as the central thesis of the book:
“At the end of the first century, the Jewish-Christian movement which destroyed the Roman paganism and opened the gates of Greco-Roman civilization, is the founder of today’s Western world and the wind, which will heal the crisis of Western civilization around the symbol of Jerusalem, will blow one more time from there that which our civilization possesses at this time.”
As it can be realized, just like it is in the case of the European Economic Community, the world is taken towards a new alliance of Jews and Christians. It seeks its salvation here with a totally new dream of “world empire” in mind. It moves forward to find moral sanctions against communism on the one hand and the Islamic world as the completely opposite counterpart of communism, along with all countries with weak technology, on the other hand. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989, twenty years after this insight, and the failure of Marxism in the field of politics (it had already proven to be failure as an ideology) demonstrates that, for the time being, the flag of the “New World Order” is carried by the European Union and the United States of America. Actually, Europe is the younger brother which is America's rival, and stands beside the United States, the leader, and they all gather under the roof of a common culture. And we ask:
“How many pairs of eyes are there in Turkey; which is to gain accession to Common Market, the hybrid of Jews and Christians, as a refugee leaving all its rights to them; perspicacious enough to see this subtlety?”
Having gained accession or planning to access: To tell the truth, during the governments representing the state or a particular regime, with it false intellectuals who can think only of the trivial, most approve by one route, others disapprove by another route. The Republic of Turkey is not at all, not even superficially, informed of any of those mentioned above. Therefore, we would like to point out the general understanding of this point as of 1994:
“A class of people for whom LIFE means coarse pleasure and possession of material and technical skills, who dreams of living more comfortable by having more freedom of prostitution when in the EEC, Westernization, in different tones as one inside another, idealized by the official ideology; ignorant of the spiritual side of things; the tradespeople of economy, the treacherous capitalist group which shows the variable attitude of approval or disapproval in terms of their own interests, and the tradesman-politician or politician-tradesman for whom being a butler in the manor is better than nothing, despite the fact that the difference in development between these two worlds is much sharper than the one between the East and West of Turkey.”
Imagine, we have a prime minister, Tansu Ciller, who can utter words so stupidly and ignorantly that come to a meaning that one is giving away her/his own land as a gift to others, here is what she said, as if she comfortably sacrifices the sovereignty over her/his own territories, when she visited Israel in 1994:
“Blessed you all, you are in the Promised Land!”
These words were uttered by an economy professor ignorant of the fact that the “Promised Land” is an expression written in the Old Testament and that in the long terms political plans of Israel the land now covers also our Southeast and Eastern Turkey! What can you expect (could it be economy?) of an economy professor whose level of culture and knowledge is so shallow?

The article “The Case of the Common Market” written in 1971 by Mehmet Ismet Salihoglu, an expert in Economy and Administration and published in the light of the Great Eastern Thesis, reflects a thorough analysis with its outline and essential logic despite the fact that the data and elements changed in the course of time. Although we are not interested in the technical details of the topic and we believe that once we show the spirit and core of the events, the rest is just details, we find it appropriate to present the whole article for it has a further value in its inspiration of our spirit and central idea:
During the coalition government of Ismet Inonu in 1963, Turkey constructed a three-stage partnership via the “Ankara Agreement” with the European Economic Community (EEC) including Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Preparation Period ended between 1964 and 1969. Turkey had actually the right to continue this Preparation Period a minimum of six more years, but as a result of the negotiations done since 1968, Turkey has undergone a period called “transitional stage” within the framework of the Common Market, and stage by stage had to carry colossal burdens starting as of 1971. The financial and additional protocols of the transitional stage negotiated in seven chapters before taking the vital steps were signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil, in Brussels, the center of the Common Market, on Monday, 23 November 1970. This signature would be last and definite point in the course of time of the development causing us to be an insignificant satellite among the second degree states, pressurized mainly economically and also socially, politically and culturally by European countries. This signature led our national economy to become the battlefield of profits of other nations. This signature meant to turn away from our own historical consciousness, to turn our backs to our own history, culture and civilization. Also, this is a critical point almost irrevocable: in order for these agreements signed by the Turkish government representative and the Common Market representatives to be valid, they have to be confirmed by the Turkish parliament and six parliaments of the principal members of the European Economic Community (EEC). (Grand National Assembly Minutes: General questioning negotiation minutes on the Common Market).
Although the dangers of the “Transitional Stage” have been underlined in a report by the State Planning Organization based on explanatory, detailed and scientific facts that are irrefutable and undeniable; and despite the efforts of experts and national organizations who, with their serious research, uncovered the clever “game” of the Common Market against Turkey and who incessantly warn against it; it was signed by the government. Yet, the only organ that can save Turkey from this ordeal is the Grand National Assembly. (It should be noted that, as of 1994, except a few people not worth excluding, nothing actually can be expected of this unqualified, corrupted, inglorious and toady members of parliament who cannot display any serious attitude—S.M.) Taking this issue to the parliament to consider it in detail, finding out the drawbacks in terms of Turkey’s vitality and vital benefits and refusing them as deserved will be the greatest historic service of this parliament to this Nation. Let us look at the dangers which have not been yet refuted and which may come out as soon as Turkey takes part in the Common Market:

1- The economic development and industrialization of Turkey will cease.
a) Turkey is at the stage of the second five-year development plan. It has a plan which will realize an improvement of 7%, as long as it will increase the share in the industrial sector (The second five-year development plan). Therefore, it has to settle the payment balance gradually. However, when Turkey has entered the Common Market Transitional Stage, the customs tariff (tax) on 55% of the total imported goods in 1967 will gradually decrease to zero in twelve years within the schedule determined as of today, for other goods, which are subject to customs duty at the rate of 100% today, in twenty-two years.
b) In addition to that, 35% of our importation will be free (without any special permission or quotas), in other words, will be subject to liberation. Today, the actual liberation is 20-22% according to the standards of the EEC. (Ortak Pazar Gecis Donemi Meseleleri [The Common Market: Issues of Transitional Stage], Dr. Ali Sait Yuksel, Devlet Planlama Teskilati [State Planning Organization] 886-SPD 202, Ankara, April 1970)
c) Also, it will have to comply with the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) which is applied to all the countries in the world except the ones who are members to the Common Market.
d) Thus, Turkish industrial goods consists of three main groups of goods: aa) cotton threads that are not turned to sell by retail... bb) Various cotton woven goods... cc) Knotted or coiled carpets; machinery made carpets made of wool or animal hair (except the textile goods in Additional Protocol-Financial Protocol – No 2; Annexed Article 1) will be able to be sold duty-free to six European Common Market members. However, among Turkey’s exportation of already limited industrial goods to the Common Market members, these three items are the ones with the highest percentage and highest potential. In fact, among the importation of the Common Market members, the share of Turkey is only 0,04%. And as long as our textile goods which have a great export potential are excluded, our duty-free exportation of industrial goods will hardly improve.
e) Additionally, it is very highly likely that Turkish industrial goods, in terms of quality and price, cannot compete with the European Industrial products which we will import from the Common Market after gradually decreasing the taxes. It is certain that the export and import deficit will reach to high amounts after the removal of quotas. The administrative position holders who ignore these facts will have to witness a tragic balance of payments over a short time.
f) Alternatives to the issue above are aa) the state takes loan to death from other states on behalf of private entrepreneur or bb) it would be unable to comply with the agreements it made.
2- Currently, no industrial field other than the textile industry has the ability or confidence to compete with European industry. Even if our Customs was “gradually” opened to the competitive Common Market, without any customs tariff or quotas, in twelve or twenty-two years, below are the disasters which will happen to our industry that is founded or planned to be founded:
a) First of all our major industry, Karabuk and Eregli Iron-Steel Factories; the Aluminum Complex founded in Konya; the Zinc-Lead Factory which is to be built in Kayseri; the Petro-Chemistry Installation in Yarimca will not be able to compete with similar Common Market products and will be seized by European companies.
b) Because of the destructive and overwhelming superiority of European competition, the planned industries of National Defense and heavy industries, which have great significance, such as engines, automobiles, machinery, weapons and ammunition and other chemical industries, electronic devices, the airplane industry, since they were all included in the twelve-year list in the Additional Protocol, cannot be founded at all, or we will witness them being built by non-national European elements and will not be able to avoid being workers or janitors in such factories at home or abroad. (Common Market and Turkey, Chamber of Mechanical Engineers, Issue no: 60)
c) Since we will have to apply the EEC Common Customs Tariff (CCT), the tariff-less importation of common investment products started in the three countries as below by Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) founded by Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, will be prevented and new ones will be made impossible and this organization, which will be deprived of its original aims, one with such great potential, will be destroyed. What is added as the protection (Organization of the Regional Cooperation for Development) and stated in Article 55 of the Additional Protocol is taken back in the second clause of the same article. (A.P. Article 55= With respect to the topic of Regional Cooperation for Development there will be counseling meeting in the Partnership Council (EEC-Turkey). The Partnership Council may decide on the required clauses. Those clauses may not prevent the Partnership (EEC) from running well.

1- It is definite that this organization with six members today will be a Christian United States of Europe with the others joining in the future and Turkey as the only Muslim Federated state will be treated as a minority.
2- Turkey’s opportunities in the course of time to found its own group with other Islamic countries in the Middle East and Africa are weakening in advance and Turkey’s chance, by founding a new economic union within a new integration, to be the “Leader State” of these groups and to be the third power in the world is getting lost. Thus, a probable integration appropriate to the interests of the Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa is made impossible.

Those small interests provided for our workers while passing from the Preparation Stage to the Transitional Stage are no other and no more than the interests we had through the bilateral agreements. When we make demands for the Turkish workers on salary, social rights and work permits in the first degree, in short equal rights as the European workers, then they propose bilateral agreements. What kind of sincerity can be expected of so called future-partners who do not give equal rights even to our workers; how can they be expected to serve for economic and social balance?” The answer to these questions is only silence! “Then, can any supporter of the Common Market give the answer to this question: what is raison d’etre of the Common Market?”

The Transitional Period has no specific use as well for our agricultural products.
a) Various advantages and tariff reduction provided for 85 % of the Turkish agricultural products being exported during the Preparation Stage was increased only by 5 % (to be 90% in total) and it is obviously not a great addition to our exportation.
b) Because Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community is not applied in our country as it is in the member states, we are not allowed to make use of “the European Fund of Agriculture” allocated for this policy.

1- Although at the latest UNCTAD meeting, ninety of the countries in the world were regarded as underdeveloped countries which need aid, Turkey was excluded since it was a member of the EEC. As a result, as stated in the note of the USA, Turkey has not been allowed to use the tariff reduction (in some cases zero tariff) applied to the industrial products exported by underdeveloped countries particularly to the United States of America and other developed countries of the world. Therefore, besides the loss of the export income and potential, we will have to apply tariff reduction to the industrial export of underdeveloped countries.
2- As long as the Turkish industries are not supported by the customs tariff reduction and export incentives, the probable future clients of ours will be the non-industrialized developing countries in the world, not the Common Market countries. That is why the direction of our exportation is not toward the developed European countries but toward underdeveloped countries of the world, especially in the Middle East.

1- During the five-year preparation period, although the loan offered by the European Investment Bank was $175 million US, for the transitional period which is five-and-a-half years, it is only $195 million US. (a- European Community- Common Market: European Communities Press and Information “Turkey” issue, no: 3 September-October 1970. b- Financial Protocol.)
2- The other $25 million credit to be offered by the European Investment Bank can be used only to pay back the last year’s credit. This and other drawbacks listed above clearly demonstrate the fact that the Transitional Period, in comparison to the Preparation Period, will have no advantage worth waiting for. Moreover, these funds are not donations but project loans given through the financial protocol. In other words, it is not a type of credit whose use is left to our state’s initiative or discretion. These credits can be used only for public or private enterprise investments which can be approved by the European Investment Bank.

One of the annexed provisions of the Common Market Transitional Period is:
“The Treaty parties of the Common Market pledge themselves to support private capital investment within each other, to promote and lay appropriate setting.”
This agreement will of course operate unilaterally. The Turkish capital owners are not even able to find capital to invest in their own country. How are they are expected to make industrial investments in six developed European countries? On the other hand, with this item to be put into effect in favor of the European states, the powerful capital circles of the Common Market will be able to control the field of business and other strategically significant corners in Turkey. Thus, before Turkey gets strong enough within the Transitional Period to compete with the Common Market circles, because of this additional protocol, it will be dominated even more than before by the foreign capital.

As stated, relevant to the Transitional Stage in item 13 of Ankara Agreement, during the Transitional Period opportunity will be given to both parties (Turkey and EEC countries) to own land and estate; foreign capital will be able to invest freely; the valuable land and residence area and touristic areas as well as other business which cannot stand the competitive market will be sold to companies whose origin is Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium or Luxembourg, or other persons who do not belong to this nation, because it will not be difficult for the Europeans who are capital-rich, more experienced in industry and superior in technology to dominate and to pervade. The proponents of the Common Market cannot demonstrate convincingly in any way to compensate the drawbacks mentioned above. What they can say is; “Turkey cannot sustain improvement with a closed economy, so in order for Turkey to be industrialized it has to open its customs and be open to competition. Moreover they state, over and over again, that the Common Market is not a metal jacket that restricts us and that it is imperative that we should be in the Common Market in order to complete the Westernization process. Yet, they can find no other, more convincing and reasonable or scholarly evidence. All these claims are speculative and far from the truth; because the meaning of industrialization and westernization in its positive sense is not copying the West blindly or being, only physically, in the same organization or opening our customs and destroying our young industry before unfair competition. A few examples will be appropriate at this point:
“During the years of ‘Administrative Reforms’ (as of the Proclamation of Tanzimat in 1839), just like today, as a result of the proponents of the idea that our industry should be opened to the foreign competition abroad, the Ottoman-English Agreement was put into effect. And our country’s products of textile industry produced in handlooms were in a short while destroyed in the market against the competition of English machine-made textile products in price and quality! Two-thousand seven-hundred and fifty handlooms were sold out and the number dramatically decreased by one-hundred fifty to two-hundred. Such concessions in the commercial agreements which then spread to other products and other Europeans caused Ottoman markets to be completely invaded by the English and European products. How the Capitulations, the menace, discouraged and prevented the development of Turkey is a painful truth known by all. The Japanese who started the attempts to industrialize their country at the same time as ours, has closed their doors to the competition from outside their country for a hundred years. With its industrial products spreading all over the world, Japan realized its economic development and has become the second greatest industrialized country in the world. The Japanese developed neither through opening their industry to foreign competition nor through a blind, formalist insistence on Westernization. The development of Japan has been realized through a conscious national industrialization process and development policy and national values have not been sacrificed but have stayed intact.”

In Lyon, France, at a dinner in the “Palace of Congresses,” the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time Schumann expressed remarkable ideas on the Common Market and with the ideas he stated he reinforced our current view, as the Great Eastern understanding, on the Common Market:
“One of the irreversible facts of the Common Market is that the economic Europe actually means the ideal of a political Europe. In fact, the meeting in Brussels on 9 February is significant in revealing some historically subtle facts. The decisions which were made target at elevating our cause to a great dynamism and higher quality through leaving the consideration of simple safety plans only. In other words, the first and foremost issue, that is, the cause of Europe, the great moral and political problem, comes first, and the European economic agenda just follows it. And this brings forward the issue of England. This is a very sensitive issue. Although I cannot say much about it as the Foreign Affairs Minister, I can declare, as a free French citizen, that it is impossible to think or imagine Europe without England. People in 1971 cannot think under the circumstances of twenty years ago. In those twenty years, humanity witnessed a lot of things; some countries declined, some countries were born; technology dramatically sped up and planes were replaced by rockets. The policy of communism, which had so far tried to defend itself, now began to threaten humanity insidiously, if not obviously. In 1950, the European Union was a union of ‘fear and worry.’ Today it has gained speed and entered into a period of agreement, unification and expectation. It will not take long to see those people of the new world who abolish all the passports to enter into each other’s territory in order to freely gather around the sole purpose of Western civilization.”
After the decline of the communism which was nothing but a different disguise for Russian nationalism, the Soviet Union was dissolved. It was to be replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States, whose boss is Russia. To what extent it poses a threat for Europe in terms of Russia’s current military power is unknown, but it is clear that the commonwealth is in real social chaos and economic collapse. Therefore, for the time being, it does not seem to be a military threat either. Today when the European Union has a powerful appearance, we exclude it from the formation of a defense union associating “fear and worry,” and we do not need to comment on the statements of Maurice Schumann, who aims at a Christian European Union and thus verifies our findings.

We would like to indicate the outline of the framework of a detailed account with its inner and outer aspects around “World Public Order” and to demonstrate the bright rays of our state of affairs and the whole into which we would like to be melted!

Aside from what is International Law or what it should be as a branch of science, the legal applications we are exposed to as Muslims in the institutions representing International Law, proves that the powerful is the “right” one in the “world public order.” At this point, we would like to give an example which has historical, legal, economic and political aspects:
“Towards the end of the First World War, the parliaments in Ankara and Istanbul drew the territorial borders of Turkey within the National Pact (Misak-i Milli, 1920), and when they understandably included Mosul, Kirkuk and Arbil, they based this connection on historical, geographic, ethnic and cultural links. Actually, the Iraqi border, according to the old Islamic geographers and to European documents, was around Hanik and Tikrit (as in the National Pact as well); as for the Northern part, it was shown to belong to ‘Upper Al Jazeera,’ which is considered to extend as far as either Diyarbakir or Erzurum. If there had been a referendum held in the region, Mosul was sure to vote in favor of our country. It was more than obvious that Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens who were merged in history, that is, fought for religion and fatherland, would vote in the same direction. This is the reason why England, who fought against Turkey and who had always wanted to own Mosul and Kirkuk oil, did not show any respect for these democratic rights. The Mosul issue remained unresolved in the Lausanne Treaty and the final decision was left to the League of Nations against the will of Turkey. Because England had a powerful status in the League, the decision was made against us and Mosul remained in Iraq as mandated territories in 1926.”

The leader of the United Nations organization, founded after the League of Nations, is also the leader of the so called “New World Order”: the United States of America! It has showed the way it sees world events in countless examples and one of these was in the case of Morocco, where the USA had its name recorded in treaties as the “the most favoured nation.” As of 1994, and in terms of the way to solve current issues, we may take a look at my conference “Palestine and Torture,” dated 12 March 1988. A part of it follows.

There is a phrase in International Law “most favoured nation”; that is, deserving the best attitude. The man who wrote the textbook in my hand did his best to make the issue seem too complicated to understand by pretending to be seen more scientific, which is the weakness of our so called scholars. Anyway, I will simplify and explain it now. There are two states; state A and state B. These two states sign a treaty and according to one of the items, when one of these countries makes an agreement, which grants extra privileges, with any other one, it allows it to enjoy those extra privileges directly. We can formulate this as follows: State A and state B make an agreement with each other and one of the items carries the expression “the most favoured nation.” Let us say, ‘A’ should be the most favoured nation; state ‘B’ and state ‘C’ made an agreement, and state ‘C’ gained more advantages than that state ‘A’ did. In that case, state ‘A’ enjoys all the rights state ‘C’ does. Now, let us follow the remainder from the book:
“The root of the expression ‘the most favoured nation’ actually lies in European Public Law. In fact, the developed states of Europe not only dominated various countries in the various continents but also developed a method of having their names recorded as ‘the most favoured nation’ in many international treaties not to get behind the other colonialists while exploiting the countries and nations other than themselves.”
We should be careful at this point:
“The United States of America and Morocco signed an agreement in 1886. This agreement contained the expression ‘most favoured nation’. Relying on this note, the United States of America takes advantage of the capitulation-relevant provisions of the agreements Morocco made with other states. The disagreement between the United States of America and France is on the judicial power given to the consulates. The rights with the largest scope given by Morocco were seen in 1856 with Great Britain and in 1861 with Spain, and the United States of America makes use of these provisions just because of the privileged note of its being the ‘most favoured nation’.”
In short, this is why I mentioned everything above. In time, those states started to withdraw the expression “the most favoured nation.” Now that I gave up on it, they should be doing the same. Since the dispute between two countries is prolonged and remains unresolved, the case is transferred to the International Justice Court, and so on. Let us now look at the violent logic. Consider the thesis supported by the United States of America:
“In the treaties made with countries like Morocco, the expression ‘the most favoured nation’ does not of course mean equal treatment and a means to sustain it. Rather it should be considered as a method while wording a text with certain references.”
Within this complicated expression, the meaning which was made implicit due to diplomatic politeness or diplomatic language actually is as follows: “In treaties made with Muslim countries like Morocco, the expressions like ‘the most favoured nation’ cannot be left behind just because others left.” Do you know what this is? “You may have left a colony behind, but I don’t need to do so; so what?” Do you grasp the reasoning here? Do you grasp the logic?

In 1992, after the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, Serbians violently attacked Bosnians. The result; two-hundred fifty thousand wounded, fifty thousand dead, and thousands of women raped, and the “arms embargo” imposed on Bosnia-Herzegovina by the United Nations, which was to the disadvantage of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1994, Russia attacked Chechnya and carried out aerial bombardment of civilians and the calm attitude by the United Nations was again shown. Here is how they justify not moving even a single finger and which disguise they use:
“The Chechen/Chechnya issue is a domestic issue of Russia!”
Upon Chechnya’s declaration of independence after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and its reluctance to join the Russian Federation, the country experienced violent attack. On the other part of the world, Serbians attacked Bosnians. Then why is this principle of the International Law, which is considered within “Human Rights” and somehow brought forward to support existence of the International Law, not applied against those attacks?:
“The statements given in the UN treaty clauses related to human rights are not moral principles but liabilities by law. Therefore, an assertion like ‘the issues relevant to human rights and fundamental freedoms are within the national scope of authority of a state, that is, they only concern that state’ can in no way be accepted!”
Especially in a state where there are various communities, one should not object to it as above relying on the principle of “a state’s right to sovereignty”. One wonders why all those states fervently busy with the human rights violations in Turkey are so indifferent to all those going on in Bosnia and Chechnya! This topic will be later considered under the chapter “Compulsion for Democracy.”

Here we have the United States of America, the boss of the “World Public Order,” the “aristocratic” and “oligarchic” class of the United Nations organization and leading countries in that class: the European Economic Communities for the time being and the candidate for “future boss,” the United States of Europe. We regard these forces as two rivaling siblings: America and Europe. How are these two siblings evolving as the two wings of the civilization they represent? Let us observe the strait of scientific and technological superiority which stems from their own texture, first, in terms of Europe, as the “accounting of the civilization they are in,” and second, in terms of the USA, from the materialist view the US possesses. Thus we will have a few more pieces of evidence on the social, economic and political dynamics of these societies. First of all, let us look at the words of a famous Western thinker and artist from his work “Love and Europe”:
“The European civilization is undergoing a test, and today is crossing a dire strait. This strait is surrounded with death threats, with the end of it being either corruption or with a distinctive move of love; a bright horizon. The European civilization faces two death threats from the east and from the west. Both are ‘materialist’: one is in its ideas; the other is in its lifestyle. Therefore, as in the understanding of De Gaulle, it needs to prepare to crusade against both the East and the West; both materially and morally. The ‘love’ thesis I handle is entangled with the move of ‘passion’ which needs very strong will. This is what comprises the Occidental civilization: love within passion or passion within love. In order to inoculate the new European, the love and passion we yearn, we have to save it from the distressing material borders which deprive it of comfort of ‘the other world.’ The conflicts of this transformation, to be seen as political, social, economic and scientific issues, may go further as a Crusade and physical attacks along with cultural assaults. This is not an impossible situation and this shows how sensitive the strait we are crossing along actually is.”
While at this strait, let us also hear the views of the Church, from the declaration of one prominent figure of the Catholic Church (having currently valid views and having made reasonable observations on the Soviet Union before it was dissolved). In this declaration, he characterizes communism, together with other religions, as the enemy of the Holy Cross, and claims that under this hostility there lies the spirit of Western and Greco-Roman civilization and he adds:
“It is the hateful enemy of the Western civilization which found its bright era after the Renaissance in spite of a number of contentions, tumult and revolt; it is fed from the same source but turn the food into venom in its own structure. The positive knowledge in it, seemingly mature, is not the end product of a conquest of nature but of something like a sledge of a butcher and it has to play its role. The words of Lenin on soul; ‘the fleshless reflections of external and material incidents,’ and his finding; ‘there is no such thing as soul!’ were inoculated to generations for fifty years as a foolish trick, like that of a magician, and today we see an enormously terrifying and skillful bear hurling rockets with his giant claws into the sky. Warning the Western nations against crisis and distress, this bear invites them to his own lifestyle so that he could reverse the whole of humanity and return it to the Stone Age; then to label themselves as new and ourselves as old. The West, whose dominance over material, such as fine arts, and scientific findings stems from their Christian ecstasy and joyousness, cannot heal her own world, cannot resolve any issue and cannot even agree with one another unless she cuts this tumor away from her chest. Upon the attitude of the ones who crucify our souls with phrases like ‘religion is opium!’ the unification of Europe, the unification of four-hundred million people, may bring a solution which could wipe out all the disagreements and unify them all in an ineradicable way.”

Rome, the Vatican, Saint Peter's Square... At that time, Pope Jean Paul VI himself stood before a group of more than two-hundred thousand, conducted the service and his message was then delivered in the following languages: Italian, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Polish, Czech, Dutch, Slovak, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese and Arabic. Although the Pope seemed quite pessimistic in his words on the course of humanity, he concluded optimistically with talk about his dream, as if he was heralding an undeniable truth, that one day people would leave their miserly aquariums and join others in the sea of Christianity. The Pope says:
“Now, listen to me friends...we are here to give you news of new hope. This news consists of not only still not being defeated regarding the challenge of faith and of it continues with all its strength but also it is much stronger now and has accomplished an advantageous superiority. The projector of idea, which is desperately needed by the modern world, will start to shine and this challenge will cover all humanity. Elimination of injustice between classes and of inequality will be realized through this faith. Otherwise humanity cannot find peace. All this disunity and suffering demonstrate that humanity will definitely unite one day and heal altogether. All this ambition, violence, selfish attempts to submit even science to the cruel and destructive minds, this lack of compassion and sincerity, which reached a level representing a dragon among societies, is the exact antithesis of the new civilization we are yearning for and it has to now be followed by the thesis. These views of ours have nothing to do with dream, imagination, utopia and myths; everything is based on a reality, on a solid realism. The name of this realism is Gospel.”
If the Pope had said Qur’an instead of Gospel, he would have grasped the true realism. There is a point in the world of Christianity which was not noticed by anybody in the world of Islam: the Church. To an extent that can cover almost all Catholics, the Church intends to have a social dominance and is obviously against laicism. In fact, a high ranking French clergyman wrote a great piece and invited the Church to regain all of its rights in France which is the cradle of laicism.

A picture in one of the first communist magazines in 1893 in England shows Samson, the well known symbol of power, about to pull down the two main pillars belonging to Western society. On the hat being worn by Samson, it reads “labor.” One of those pillars represents Church and the other, state. As a result, they are the targets of communism. The Soviet adventures within the communist system which was formed within Western “rules of emotions and ideas” are known to anyone. After it passed away, the United States of America remained alone. The budget proposal offered by President Nixon to the US Congress at the end of January 1971 was considered as “revolutionary.” This consideration should be underlined to show how it is viewed by Europeans and what the moral motives are:
“The United States of America is getting into a new mood. For the first time in history, a Republican president, diverting from the financial and economic traditions, aims at a sudden quantum leap for the US both in terms of an interior attempt and becoming an exterior authority. This is a revolutionary act and it indicates new intentions in the domestic-foreign, social and political realm. The domestic issue, first of all, is to solve unemployment in the country. In other words, to increase the employment power of the US and achieve maximum utility. Despite domestic or external crises, it is obvious that the sole aim of the USA is AMERICAN HEGEMONY IN THE WORLD. The new budget is clear evidence of this aim and President Nixon carries a much heavier weight than did any other president. The older Americans, who believe that their principle is to be self-sufficient and to have security cautions in only their own continent, may be making a face now. However, younger Americans, who do not consent to be squeezed in the ‘castle of America’ between Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, may desire to dominate the world from this castle and to elevate it the most productive level and to make it potentially the strongest country to be able to meet the requirements of becoming a world empire and world system, according to their own economy. Older Europe, on the other hand, is after a caution against this economic imperialism.”

Federal Germany… Before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, Federal Germany used to be called “West Germany.” East Germany was a communist state, called “Democratic Germany,” and a member of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, within a castle called the Iron Curtain and a satellite of the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, East and West Germany united. After this unification, Germany became the most powerful European country. It was already a serious rival of the United States and was now greater in size, thus causing some worries which were publicly expressed. The history of Germany, who attempted to rule the entire world with a violent appetite of brute force during the Second World War, is known to all. We would like to underline the topic of Germany for its reversal contributions to democracy, but in later chapters. For now, let us view it, along with its yesterday and today, as a major pillar of the “world public order,” from the window of history shortly:
“The 100th anniversary of the German Union was celebrated on 18 January 1971. On 18 January 1871, in the glass gallery of Versailles, the German Union and Empire was proclaimed. After defeating the French at the end of 1870, they arrived in Paris and announced this Union in the palace of the King of France. In Werner’s painting, one can see Prince Bismarck in his blue uniform, beside his Majesty who promoted himself from the king of Prussia to the head of the German Empire, standing at the throne of invaded France, beneath the resplendent chandelier and in front of the fireplace. So, Germany accomplished a major objective and realized the dream of a German Empire, which they stole from the Austrians, whom they reduced to submission in the campaign of 1866. It is known that in the forty years between 1870 and 1910, Germany became the leader in European industry and made the king of Britain think that one (he) should put an end to this. Eventually the First World War was started in 1914, and history witnessed the attempt of the Germans to achieve hegemony over all of Europe with great armies but they were eventually defeated due to terrible policy. However, the Versailles agreement was signed in 1918, and this time from the folded documents which resembled a rifle, shot out Hitler and unified this ‘romantic’ nation, attaching them to a dream of world domination, which would fall upon his shoulders. History thus repeated itself! With a giant army and material dominance, a magnificent technique, a shallow world view in terms of pure thought, along with a terrible and repellent policy, and the Second World War led Nazi Germany to its eventual fall. The stunning recovery of Germany in five to ten years after they were defeated and thoroughly destroyed, thus leaving their former ambitions and dreams aside, and instead concentrating their efforts on industry and having their own workers labor like the commanders of a squad in order to become a country which could open its gates to millions of workers from abroad and to work as industrial soldiers, has been the greatest battle Germany won thanks to good policy. That battle was one which took place in the field of politics.”
Here is what a great historian and thinker said on the centennial of German Union:
“One-hundred years ago, Bismarck said; ‘Let us put Germany, so to speak, in the saddle! She will show you how to manage a horse...’ The rest is as known. In no country’s history can one see such a collection of events; decline and recovery, fall and improvement, all within a single century! Let us consider Hitler. He arrived in Vienna acclaimed by the people in the streets, who saluted him with ‘heil!’ His photograph was taken in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris; his armies reached Greece and North Africa, but, the German thought that this Austrian could act as the dictator of the world came into conflict with history, which in its natural and humane course, swept away the dream of dominance of one nation over humanity. Thus Germany had to expose its marvelous body as a target of its own suicide. Treitschke said of Alsatians; ‘We Germans know better what is good for Alsace than they consider for themselves!’ This expression shows the German nationalist self-conceit towards other nationalities, which even sledgehammers cannot break. As de Gaulle stated, the violent nationalism against other nations can no longer be a choice or a desire. When German patriotism, which Heine described as ‘a matter of heart,’ had itself a clawless identity, this great country of order both will learn what happiness is and will represent the culture that makes it known by others too. ‘On earth, nothing is mature; nothing is complete in itself’ read the lyrics of a German song. Poets like Holderlin expressed the sufferings of a broken nation but never imagined that when Germans would unite, this pain would one day become an ambition to cause others to suffer. Despite all, it should be accepted that this nation experienced such greatness and smallness together, but after all they went through they managed to reach a level of maturity and took their strong place on the world scene. ”

In order to reach a real diagnosis about Germany, one should handle the topics of Nazism and fascism, which should be accepted as one of the reasons why it is called “sweet” democracy. We shall explore the issue of democracy later but let us focus on Nazism and fascism for now. They are based on depression in the communities during the Twentieth century due to the ambiguity in ideals and internal crises arising in high classes, who consider their bases to be weak, and the feeling of and deprivation of rights in lower classes. Yet the real basis is the depression among the intellectuals and in fact, Heidegger studies only this topic and came up with his view of “philosophy of depression.” Actually it was Hitler who splendidly simplified this deep rooted and complicated knot and put it into an action plan and made sure it was adopted by the nation's youth. While Hitler emphasized racism as the value to glorify, Mussolini emphasized Ancient Rome, and for Charles Morras it was being faithful to the ancient culture. However, the starting point is not an ideological one. Action takes precedent and the ideology has to follow. The state, in order to heal its own depression, looks for a hunt; looks to make an attack, in its own structure, and thus finds the “animosity against Jews.” Hitler transmitted all these objectives, which he found out intuitively, into an action plan with an unprecedented simplification and then proceeded to hypothesizing, but could not reach to the level of contemplation. Indeed, when the German social order embodied as a seemingly perfect arrangement was pulled down along with its army, no idea of it whatsoever remained. Nevertheless ideas are not moved by force. On the contrary, ideas are what move force. And, such an apparently simple mood which is very easy to be transmitted from people to people under certain circumstances, is extremely difficult to eliminate from Germany or from anywhere else and seems to be an everlasting topic of horror.
Today Germany, according to the analogy made by a Western journalist, is like a ferocious murderer who is finally released and has opened a shop for himself, and has started to spend all of his energy on this new effort. Thus it appears as if he has given up on his old habits. Democracy, liberalism, economic effort, industrial superiority; that is all! Compared to the picture before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it is even unable to wield her broken arm on the East and is under close surveillance of her Eastern and Western wardens. So, the country (Germany), which can be described as above and whose population is four or five times more crowded than ours in her every square kilometer, and which still has the capacity to ask for more workers from other countries, is not a happy country psychologically. The romantic land of Beethoven, Goethe and Nietzsche does not seem satisfied with their successes and appears not to have given up on the dream of Nazism. The mood dominant, especially among the German youth, can be described like this: just as Germany experienced a terrible defeat only to create a Hitler afterwards, it yearns, if not the same as it did then, for a hero who will put things in order and place Germany in the position of “the representative of Europe.” The soil that witnessed this history, of how Germany challenged humanity and was swallowed by the earth, should now smile at Germany’s face and after making subtle calculations, Germany must have the position of the greatest Western weapon without arousing suspicion among other Western democracies. Therefore, the political climate demands that a neo-Nazism is the necessity. Like water running deep down ice, this is the internal and hidden inclination, and when this potential is realized, it will lead to another downfall. One may not be certain about the meaning of the “tamed” security given by Germans to Americans, yet Germany must be there against the threat of the Russians, whose military might is still felt; and without an ideal which is believed by all and a strict discipline arising from the ideal, Germany in non-existent.
As it could be immediately understood, both Europe and the World public order are going through a process containing a great number of complicated and problematic contradictions within itself.

As for Japan… An American journalist made some diagnoses uncovering Japan in his article titled “New Course Japan Takes” which aroused a great deal of interest, writing on a country silently proceeding in a determined and conscious route and keeping away from political complications. Now, we would like to quote those diagnoses which are still fresh, so that we could explore the impressive role of this country in the “world public order” as a giant of economy in the global balance of powers, instead of the proposing herself as a dominant lifestyle, and the present and future political implications of this:
“The Japanese octopus, which had many of its arms trimmed down in the Second World War, healed its wounds quickly and concentrated all the energy it has in the economic sphere to regain a domestic soundness and power. The industrial and economic potential which was reached by Japan, just like Germany, can hardly be seen in any other countries which either won the battle or were excluded from the battle. One cannot refrain from asking himself; ‘Does a country like this have to be terribly defeated in order to obtain such a spiritual power and rear up so dramatically?’ The Japanese attach great importance to pride and are aware of the fact that they should be patient when they can do nothing, and wait for the proper day to take revenge. Therefore, it is impossible for them to forget about the Hiroshima disaster which caused millions of people to perish. The rage hidden in them will one day turn into an even greater fury as soon as they have reached the required conditions, and at that time, they will call the West to account for having committed all of this. Until then, they will have been creating technical, industrial and economic marvels thanks to that rage. The representatives of the West on which the Japanese will call to account are the United States and Russia. However, the reciprocal relationship of these two countries is obvious. Thus, Japan will most probably regard the US as a postponed enemy and first direct its energy towards the other, waiting for it to become alone in opposition to China and hopeless to dominate Asia. The common and complicated point between China, Russia, the United States and Japan is that the possibility to be partners or aggressive against one another is likely at the same time. Japan is not ignoring its political and military objective while dealing with all of its economic success. It only appears to be doing so and prepares for the day it will appear as a whole.”
The other side of the coin shows what has become of social structure of Japan during the above mentioned industrialization: the spiritual and moral crisis prevailing in the world managed to penetrate into the hard and mystical Japanese texture and to bite with its venomous teeth. Despite the number of spiritual and social sanctions based on Japanese traditionalism, the crisis surrounded Japan like flies around food; the consequent being the silence of morality and psychological breakdown which is crystal clear even to a new visitor. The Japanese youth, which should be the farthest type to “hippies,” became the best source of recalling these meandering herds in the world. Sexually morality has desperately declined. Instead of the innocent, sensitive, romantic and faithful Japanese woman representing the Japanese sacredness in Claude Farrere's work titled The Battle, there is now a distinctive type of woman. It is as if an egg was cracked and a baby was born as the complete opposite of the mother. In comparison to the former Japanese woman who looks absentmindedly and introverted and is modestly covered by elegant pieces of cloths, the new type is extroverted and has treacherous and tired eyes and appears stark naked. On every corner there have sprouted institutions for lust and sex. The picture of general morality is no different from that. If Japanese traditionalists and politicians’ objective is to find its material in these youth, they are doomed to failure.

As for China… The country, particularly after the decline of the Soviet Union, had its share from the winds of liberalism and democracy in the early and late 1990s and is today most crowded country of the world. The country which transformed the controversial spiritual materialism and an earthly religion into the communist order could not continue to be as committed as it was before Mao’s death. During the 1990s, this country which, in the international domain, keeps a rather low profile when compared to the economic and political weight it used to have, is not even culturally promising a life style that could be spread around the world. China, with its population representing one third of the world's, is merely a “storehouse of hungry people,” and the threat it poses, if it does any, is only connected to this aspect of its population. What can be said of India, is not very different from that.

And here we are framed by the title “Ideal” belonging to the Architect of the Great East (Necip Fazil): We had a dream only yesterday. The ideal of ideals, it was the ideal of immortality. It was the ideal which was to conquer the world and beyond. This ideal, in the Ottoman Empire, continued for two and a half centuries with all its grandeur and majesty from the beginning of the Fourteenth century to the middle of the Sixteenth century. In this line and for the sake of this ideal, we connected three continents within the clamp of Tawhid (affirmation of the Oneness of Allah) and sealed it with Islam. Despite the restricted technical conditions in transportation and logistics etc. in those years, we mobilized huge armies that could be barely organized that orderly in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries. These armies, unlike the armies before and after them, left behind castles, inns, caravansaries, mosques and madrasahs like a lace with a gracefulness of an embroiderer, unlike the others who destroyed all the precious works of art on its way. These armies were not like herds, as the Turkish republic today occupying its own country, but grand corps of force representing the right of material and spiritual occupation or conquest of this country. The ideal that entitled us as the conqueror of the world was shadowed more and more in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. It lost its flame and ardor. Subsequently, this was the beginning of the end, the flames started to die and the floor left to tongue twisters of holy canons. The army turned into a center of banditry defeated by an enemy from the outside but gained a victory against its own nation. The “Administrative Reforms-Tanzimat (1839)” movement, which just copied the frescos without feeling or understanding the spirit within along with the course of progress, was one of the most shallow acts ever witnessed by history. A shallow act; and because it was not able to accomplish the auditing and contemplation between the worlds, it became an instrument which caused the current already shriveled ideal to become lost; not to mention bringing about a new ideal. And when the need for an “ideal” started to be felt to some extent, what came up was the hurly burly of the Union and Progress (Ittihad wa Taraqqi). Whereas it was imperative that the core of nationalism should be based on spiritual content and religion, the ideal of Turkism of the members of the Union and Progress movement was a total reversal of the ideal of Islam, to which we owe all our existence, and even of all Western thinkers like Durkheim whose ideas they transformed. Thus, the pseudo-nationalism of Ziya Gokalp is guilty both scholarly, as they distorted the master’s ideas, and religiously, as the hostility against Islam for which it apparently seems respectful, is doomed to failure since racism is not an ideology but merely a sort of psychology. Therefore it is too narrow to lay a boundless horizon for any ideal and cannot go beyond a fantasy or a child game. So far it has done nothing beyond inoculating intellectuals-of-a-quarter size (named as Alp or Tekin or Mete instead of Mehmeds, Alis and Osmans), with hostility against Islam. In other words, tribalism (nationality is an Islamic term meaning the quality of the unity of spirits and those residue-fans have no right to use this word which belongs to the core) cannot be an ideal on its own and the Turkism of the Union and Progress caused the ruin of the greatest ideal of all, instead of saving it.
And then came the National Independency Movement and Republic. Surviving as a space (materially) thanks to the surge of Islamic spirit, a residue from the ideal of ideals and breaking with this ideal forever on the basis of time (spiritually). Moreover, at some stages, for instance, during and after the Second World War, history witnessed the massacre of a nation saved materially but ruined spiritually.
And did the Republic bring anything new?
The way of administration: This is not an ideal, but merely a dry frame just like a “manual for simple information,” with everything depending on the meaning inside of it.
The commitment to reach the contemporary civilization: In order for this to be the ideal, it should be targeted by a true and thorough world view. Otherwise, it is a commonplace fad if practiced in such a way as copy and paste.
Revolutions: Adopted by not one single soul; unable to replace the ones they swept and threw away.
Democracy: In the way it is enjoyed by us, replaced with all types of authorities, be it material or spiritual, it is a calamity of vacuousness which is worse than most bloody despotic regimes.
As a consequence:
After all this historic ordeal and adventure, “being deprived of an ‘ideal’ ” descended on us at last, it proved to be the unique root of all the political, administrative, social, economic, moral, military, cultural and spiritual failure, and it painted the bleak picture we see today. Gentlemen! In this spiritual doomsday it is high time we noticed the truth as below:
“None of our revolutions has the quality of a view of the world or an ideology, therefore, is an ideal. Thus, admit the vital requirement, vital as water is to fish. Then it is time to talk about what the national ideal can be!”

We have already pointed out the contradictory structure of Western democracy, in particular the model of the United States of America (regarded as the homeland of democracy), which is spiritual in their ideas yet materialist in their way of life. In fact, the reason for the characterization of the United States of America as such is that it represents a liberal system as opposed to a Marxist one; a materialist view of the world, and as a result, the recognition of the rights of the individual and the freedoms given to a person, with which to express his own thoughts and conscience. The reality behind this, however, is that the United States of America is regarded as the place of origin of the pragmatic philosophy, in which to find the stable (through experience) values in terms of “benefit” in practical life, instead of absorbing the essence of things and to have concern with the “purpose of life.” Within this framework, religion, apart from its objectives, goals and rights or wrongs, as well is a beneficial practice because it helps people to achieve happiness and peace. If such a view on life is included in the categorization of mystical-spiritual, as opposed to a materialistic point of view of things, it actually is nothing but a cruel selfish hedonism, and therefore another type of materialist way of living. From the standpoint of a position where the individual will is valued and the individual will is seen as the determinant factor in society; this view brings us to democracy. On the other hand, another view regards the individual will as the consequence of social relations, determined by the “production relations” and connects this to reality found by “dialectic materialism”; this view brings us to the type of materialism mentioned above. Moreover, within this difference between the two views, democracy is described and classified as something which values the individual will as opposed to a materialist view. Taking into consideration all the points emphasized here, these are some characteristics mentioned on classic democracy:
“Classic democracy-political democracy is principally based on the idea that what is dominant is individuals’ feelings and ideas; not materials and also has the belief that the power should belong to the public. As a natural result of this, it is imperative that the individuals in the society should express their personal wills. Secondly, since individuals, within the contexts other than human relations, own an unchangeable, natural and ideal law, it regards the existence of unchangeable laws in the world as a principle. And again, as a natural consequence of this, it admits it as its liability that these unchangeable laws should at every time and in every place, that is, in every society, produce the same effects. And more importantly than these, it is based on the principle and belief that, in a society governed by freedom, a better level and true justice can be attained!”
The critique of democracy will be made in Chapter Three. Here, the obvious reason for the “compulsion for democracy” and the main purpose is to demonstrate that international imperialism has made democracy a means in its hideous plan presented as the “New World Order.” Let us make this statement a starting point and let us look at the characterization of democracy as mentioned above, together with the declaration of former United States President Wilson:
“During the First World War, the article in the declaration issued by President Wilson, which states; ‘Nations have the right to determine their own fate,’ took the notion of democracy further than being an internal regime and announced it to the entire world as the basis of international relations. In fact, after the Versailles Peace Treaty, great powers made some amendments in their government types on the basis of democracy; the newly constructed states adopted this regime as the basis for their political structure, and thus, influences of democratic principles began to be seen in the relationships between states.”
Nevertheless, when it is a replacement of “monarchy”, “oligarchy” and “aristocracy” with the forms of Republic or sometimes only a change into irrelevant (to its original definition) forms, how can one call it “democratic?” It sounds quite controversial, doesn’t it? What about the regimes demonstrating the most advanced freedom while they are the structures within the definition of monarchy or oligarchy? What we would like to point out here is the reason why democracy, which especially following the Second World War began to spread and continues to spread even more until this time, should be prevalent all over the world according to some people.
First of all, it should be known that the democracy for the West itself is the regime for preventing the evil, not for bringing the good. It is a link filtered through and ripened after the experiences such as the centuries-old tyranny of the church, living in subhuman conditions as slaves under feudalism, the despotism of kings, communism, Nazism and fascism. At this point, it should be noted that the situation of the United States of America as the extension of the West and thus the democracy of this country, due to its relevance in its roots, in a sense, and its loosely-structured societal form, is not at all appropriate to strike roots for fascism or any other totalitarian regime.
The democratic regime which, for the West, is a sort of toothed wheel interacting between themselves through which they have reduced the negative effects (otherwise which might cause a general destruction of their own, due to the fights in which they are involved against each other) is for the Islamic world and the third world, only a poison which is covered with chocolate. In brief, the fight between brothers within a family can be prevented and solidarity is maintained again. However, in countries where democracy is imported, the members of the society are shifted from the sovereignty of the state and the citizenship of a state to the status of “world citizenship” and the “New World Order,” of which characteristics have been described by the West. By means of the concept of state which is reduced so as to protect individual rights and freedoms and which is based on sovereignty of nation, they have a purpose of their own: to tame these so called “sovereign nations” and make them slaves of the “New World Order!”
We pointed out the legal, political, economic, social and religious aspects and particulars of the democracy of the “New World Order.” Here is the significant point we would now like to note:
“While a democracy which arises from the Western society and the Western way of life is exported to others as an extension of colonialism integrated again into this society and way of living, it turns into something irrelevant in the far away places, which it has nothing to do with the West or anything ‘Western.’ This situation not only gives them a sort of right to intervene in the name of democracy but also opens the door to abundant possibilities for many things in an indirect way!”
In the previous parts, we have noted the fact that there are overlapping and identical points of the principles of democracy and the “international law,” the United Nations organization, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Economic Community. Within this framework, we already know that these powerful states intervene in other countries' affairs and use their military forces whenever it is to their economic and/or political interest. And also we know that whenever they have no prospective profit, they just sit back and watch. It is a widely known fact that the West, led by the United States of America, along with the states which have become slaves to it, attacked Iraq; basing their savage invasion on the clauses of international law like “it is prohibited to gain territories by force” and saved Kuwait in the name of the (jerk!) Kuwaiti administration. It is another widely known fact that they just sat and watched the Serbians attack and kill Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that we, as the slave countries, powerless to do anything but watch and mourn the victims. The West has not only witnessed a cold-blooded massacre but has also imposed an embargo on weapons and prohibited Bosnians to purchase any weapons to protect themselves. Russians brazenly attack Chechnya; no one knows what sort of decision the West will make in the future, and the West just watches for the time being. There is not much point in going further back to multiply such examples or going forth to add the possible ones. What matters is to grasp the spirit and the core of these things.
As for the fact that the countries which have imported democracy have indirectly had ample opportunities. On the one hand, obtaining the position of the “determining” one within the order of “profit” and “interest” in the economic field under the structure based on “individual rights and freedoms,” on the other hand to manage the comprador media who financially forms a public opinion on the “internal” and “external” affairs, while forcibly making the matters international by means of the organizations representing and comprising public pressure groups under the name of Nongovernmental Organizations, and determining the political power through elements of influence entangled or related to each other. Manipulate the moral, legal, social, economic and political structure of a country in the way in which you like! For example, even though it reads on the walls of the Parliament “Sovereignty belongs to the Nation,” in order to come to power or once they become the government after the national election, they all are ready to be in compliance with the orders of the United States of America and the other powerful states of the West! And what about, in the international economy, the role of the banks of the Western imperialism, which determines the government through a hesitant attitude on credits, and likewise, the financial aid and the military aid expected from the West?
While the “New World Order” is arranged in and disguised with democracy, words like “without discriminating race, sex, religion or language” in the article related to “human rights” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations is nothing but palaver. How can one talk about equality of nations when states cannot sit equally around the table?
Especially with the structure of their Security Council, the United Nations Organization has demonstrated that they are in fact a dictatorship of pigs. Among the permanent members of the Security Council who have the right to veto, what is the reason for not having even one Muslim country? The countries whose majority population is Muslim, even though the country is not administered by an Islamic regime, is to them a shoe cupboard!
Here is the consequence: The imposed democracy of the West is in fact a despotism, just like in the famous novel of George Orwell, “Animal Farm” or “the dictatorship of the pigs—in which we are all forced to accept their order and principle of ‘we are all equal but some of us are more equal than other!’” To be more explanatory, it would sufficient to raise innumerous examples for “discriminatory actions” before our laws and regulations which are supposed to be applied equally for everyone! Imagine that, the son of the former General Staff Chief, Dogan Gures, and the son of the Defense Minister, Mehmet Golhan, are draft resisters. And thanks to their fathers, those boys who evaded from their military service with a false medical report declaring they had a “fishbone in their throat” were regarded as “equal before law” with other boys. The son of the former president Tansu Ciller did his military service just across the street from his mother’s manor; that is, he is “more soldier” than others! The brother, nephew, brother-in-law and in short, the whole family of Suleyman Demirel, another former president of Turkey, were all involved in a number of fraudulent conversion and corruption for thirty years. Demirel himself was involved in as such, yet all are somehow very clean! The sons, daughter, wife and attendants of another former president of Turkey, Turgut Ozal, made a lot of profit in a number of illegal acts; a policeman who drove the car of his younger son in order to take the money obtained from a blackmail, fired upon a team of policemen attempting to stop him, killed the police chief and injured three policemen. Most probably they did not know whom they were informed against. However, the police who usually give a hard time to anybody, relevantly or irrelevantly, did not ask the owner of the car, junior Ozal, even a question, even though there was a corpse of a police in the event: Mehmet Agar, the former police commissioner of Istanbul, who is now gloriously fighting against unlawfulness as today’s Chief Commissioner of the Police!
You must now have understood it all: Although the “upper-class” would not obey the rules they themselves have laid down, they expect that the “lower-class” should be law-abiding members of the nation and that the order should be maintained within the law they made; for within such a dominance of law and order, what is current is in fact their own interest. It is just like the boss and watchmen in a mining location who can never tolerate any adverse attitude or behavior emanating from their slaves working the mine, which might result in a threat to their own “peace and security”. In other words, the treacherous class who gets the same treatment abroad as it gives to its own society should have no reason to complain about “double standards,” because they themselves are the representatives of this kind of understanding in our own country.
Now that the framework for the reason why the Western imperialism is in the position of “compelling for democracy” has been given, we can explore the issues related to it:
Considering the standpoint of all we said about the characteristics of democracy and the “New World Order,” one might ask such a question: “Are we in demand of monarchy or any other totalitarian regime?” First of all, it should be known that monarchy or oligarchy is not the only alternative to democracy. We are going to see the details of it when we closely explore our Grandsublime State.
In the previous paragraphs, we have mentioned that the social structure of the American society is not “homogeneous” and therefore has no depth to strike root for fascism or any similar totalitarian regime. However, it should not be misunderstood that what we mean is not an argument for fascism or any other totalitarian regime as such. What we want to do is in fact demonstrate that, while we do not agree with the ordinary rote-learned praises for democracy, we also disagree with the ordinary rote-learned curses on the regimes opposite democracy. We are going to see this when we closely examine our “Grandsublime State.”

It is a usual consequence, and one which does not need further analysis, that war is predestined for humanity:
“The pursuit for a life without war is like seeking an antidote for death. There is no point in taking precautions against war, just as against death. However, death is far beyond the will of human beings. Nevertheless, if wars seem to be at the command of that will and thought to be something that can be prevented, it is a futile attempt; its prevention is only a dream. Human beings are doomed to fight with each other forever; this is the law of creation!”
No matter what the reason for fighting a war is, be it some needs or passions or ideals, although there may be avoidable types of war, these are only few in total and the real reason behind a war can never be eliminated. Although it may seem a bit paradoxical, the fact is that wars are fought in order to destroy the order of the other party and for themselves “build or maintain its own order.” Now that order, both as a need and as an obligation, is imperative for human communities. Now that there will inevitably be an order this or that way, and now that only one of the order proposals can be practically applied, the existent order and the proposed ones or the contradictory status of the proposed orders are actually seeds of war waiting to turn green. And under these circumstances, the real nature of the call for peace seems to be the expressions of a lot of pretenses such as an observation that one's order is maintained at peace, of avoiding risks, “incapability”, covering fear and indolence. The real and basic natures above can also be related to many other reasons; for instance, some groups pretend to be against the existent order, but in fact realize a number of interests such as material gain or fame.
The same is valid for international relations as well. Indeed, the relations of states are not just for favor but for self interest. This is actually the reason why certain relations are good while others are not. Wars are not fought “for fun,” and as the military thinker Clausewitz points out, “war is the continuation of politics with some other means.” It needs an order to which the relations between states can be connected, just like the requirement of order in a society; and the reason for war is still there. And for whose order? And to whose benefit? And why is it not the one I propose, but instead the one they propose?
After pointing out the issue of war while mentioning the “world public order,” let us now talk about a war connected to the aim of the same order; let us talk about the attack against Iraq by the entire Western world, especially by the United States of America, and by the other slave states, on the basis of the decisions made by the United Nations. Before the attack, all those “hired pens and mouths” spoke the same words, television channels including the state-run television and the whole press covered the same news and followed a discourse on “Saddam the Cruel!” and all the public and parliament was influenced, and the winds were blowing in favor of the United States and its allies. After the famous interview with me, it was only Ibda members who were left to break the slaving official ideology’s influence on the public and turn the course of the events to the reverse order; to resist the existing order in all those well known Friday demonstrations. I am now presenting the interview as a whole, embodying the Friday demonstrations, which made itself heard all over the country and which made Turgut Ozal, the president of Turkey at that time, change his mind about getting involved the war in the Gulf region and which made him crazy (the possible fear of chaos in the country if the country was involved). At this point, I am going to give a brief account of the American authority called the “New World Order” and the war under consideration:
Even though Saddam was beaten, he loosened a wheel of the cart called the “New World Order” and made it a “runaway” cart; one which nobody knows where it is going to bump. It has also been seen that the legend produced about the American Army turned out to be fake and it was proved that the American army can be defied and fought against. In other words, the balloon was deflated.

The Weekly Cuma: When you, as the “Commander” of the Ibda movement, were asked to make an interview by our reporters about the Gulf Crisis, you said that there is no point in speaking just for the sake of speaking. We would like to relate all you talked about in that preliminary talk of ours with you.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By all means! First of all, I believe that the issues should be handled at a level they actually deserve. The reason why I mention this measurement is here: One side of the issue seem extremely simple and good for easy talk, however, the other side of the issue is extremely complicated and requires much thought on the lessons it has given. Instead of speaking the same things over and over again and pretending to say something and playing games like flying children’s kites, I am interested in catching the inward matter, spiritual motifs, and make then the inflaming, fuelling, motivating, directing part of the Islamic movement. This is the point where I stand when I talk to you, I will speak within this framework.
The Weekly Cuma: If you do not mind, I would like to learn about your general opinions on the attitude of the parties involved in the Gulf Crisis.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Obviously, according to me, neither the different parties of this crisis nor the ones who were somehow involved into the issues know really what is going on. Everything is moving in its course just like groping behind a thick curtain of fog. There is a kind of ambiguity and uncertainty both in terms of analyzing things and in terms of power mathematics. One has to stop and think about the profound lessons emerged due to divine reasons!
The Weekly Cuma: All right, then, what do you think about the situation of Turkey under these circumstances?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, please listen to me, because I am going to read some newspaper clips in which you can find Turgut Ozal’s statements. This is what he said on August 11: “I don’t think there will be a serious action in the Gulf Region. I really don’t believe...” Seventeen days later, on August 28, he says: “This war can hardly be prevented!” That’s what he said to the BBC. One day before this he stated: “The survival of Saddam Hussein’s regime is at stake each day!” However, on August 13, he said the contrary: “I don’t think Saddam can ever be overthrown. He is very powerful. And he is acting as the father of all Arabs!” Then on September 22, he told to a journalist: “This issue can eighty or ninety per cent be settled through embargo, yet patience is needed!”
The Weekly Cuma: Whatever he says is contradictory to each other, is that what you would like to point out?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes. And, in addition to all of this, there is the ambiguity of Turgut Ozal’s position and scope of authority and imagine the situation. He is acting as if he is the president (as in the US within the presidential system) of the state. Let me put it in other words: There is no presidential system in Turkey, and in doing so, Turgut Ozal is in fact violating a Constitutional rule as the head of the state, which is indeed a symbolic position.
The Weekly Cuma: Could you please elaborate more on this? And what is relevance of this to the Gulf Crisis?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Due to the availability of exact and continuous applications, I have to use the United States of America as an example for the Presidential System. In the US, “the executive power” belongs to the president elected by the public; in other words, “the executive” is represented by one person: the President; to whom the Vice President and the Members of the Cabinet deeply faithful. In terms of the rank relations between the cabinet members and the President, the cabinet members in this system are described as “secretaries” by the law practitioners. The executive agent is the president; this is the reason why the regime is called “Presidential Government.” The secretaries have to obey the policy made by the President and the president has the right to terminate their positions whenever he wants. And let me add this too: The authority of the President to command the armed forces is not symbolic as it is in the regimes of parliamentary head of state as ours. He has the authority to send troops to any place in order to maintain the security of the United States of America and the administration of the foreign affairs too is among his tasks. Well now, in our system, it might be possible to change the tasks and role of the head of the state and to make him superior to the government representing the parliament, especially when there is such a puppet prime minister; however, this would bring about many problems, because it is just a statue without a base. The Gulf Crisis will reveal the system crisis in Turkey. To tell the truth, within a period of authority chaos and civic disorder, there will then be a proper basis for all those revolutionary movements!
The Weekly Cuma: Then, I guess, it will come down to the discussion about the question how real the identity Turgut Ozal assumed in his visit to the United States of America is.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We have to go beyond the personal level and accept the fact that, neither at home nor abroad, Turkey has the cultural and moral image it would like to take up and achieve. If you think about this comment together with what I said about Turgut Ozal, you will see that the consequences are amazing. First of all, today, one can easily see that the power of the governing party in the parliament and the public support given to them is not proportionate and the election of the head of the state has been carried out in a questionable fashion. The prime minister is acting like an orderly officer of the head of the state, which is neither lawful, nor ideal.
One should remember that he was a man who did his best to abuse former prime minister Suleyman Demirel’s power by buttering him up and who asked his permission while he was assigned to take a position after the coup on September 12, 1980 and remember how he became unfaithful and perverse as a party leader. If you remember all this, then you can infer about Yildirim Akbulut (puppet prime minister during the Gulf Crisis!) whose relationships were mostly based on his own profit and political interests. Whether Yildirim Akbulut has a kind of courage to resist Turgut Ozal or not, but within this kind of relationships, the ground is always changeable and insecure. The insecurity results from the illegal image drawn by Turgut Ozal and all about the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament belonging to their own Party and even Party Organizations. And there are the opposition parties who do not recognize him and who regards him as the president of ANAP (Motherland Party) not the head of the state. As a consequence, the political attitude which is claimed to be Turkey’s official policy especially abroad in fact does not reflect the realities in Turkey legally, socially, or morally!
The Weekly Cuma: What might be possible effects of this situation on the Gulf Crisis or the effects of the Gulf Crisis on us?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, such a structure cannot motivate our people to make their moves according to official policies; in other words, it won’t be able to stimulate, excite, provoke or lead them. Then, both in terms of the US and Europe and of their auxiliaries here in Turkey might be very much surprised at all these unexpected developments by distinctive personalities!
The Weekly Cuma: You do not approve of Turkey’s engagement with the United States of America and Europe during the Gulf Crisis. Then, what do you think about Saddam Hussein?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes, I do disapprove of collaborationist and toady policies! The commitments involved in without taking Islamic groups’ reactions into account, may produce unexpected consequences. It will never be unreasonable if the issue is considered in terms of hatred against Western in general, in particular American imperialism instead of “like or dislike Saddam Hussein”; because it has got cultural and psychological roots in our people. And I would obviously like to say that in all those countries with a Muslim population as the majority, regardless of the attitude of the government, the members of the society have a distinct sense of intuitions and emotions. I don’t want this to sound like a possibility of this or that but for this or that reason, the life of foreigners in Muslim countries is somewhat in danger. The American and Western citizen will have to confront not only with Islamic groups but also with leftist and nationalist organizations!
The Weekly Cuma: Do you think, the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq is evaluated within a sound frame of mind in Turkey?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: It’s a good question! The talk between the former prime minister Bulent Ecevit and Saddam Hussein opened the eyes of many people and therefore now there are power centers feeling rather disturbed. Now, let me give you an example to clarify. While a reporter from a periodical was interviewing me three or four years ago, I refuted his weak arguments and then he held onto the “the law against nuisance” like a life buoy, and he asked me if I was one of those proponents of the prohibitions. As a matter of fact, I find the law rather ridiculous because this is a country where the gypsy culture is now administrating the country and gypsy culture is among the missions of the Ministry of Culture and the performers of belly dance are titled “artist” and acclaimed, and where one is given a ministry after flattering the right person and where the civil servants uniformed or not publicly get rich through all kinds of illegal ways and where fat women use their husbands' high positions like a piece of furniture at home. And despite all this social and administrative weakness and despite this bunch of people who dishonestly gain billions of lira in an apparently honest way, there are mothers who sell their flesh in order to feed their children and where good men and soldiers are encouraged or ordered to watch pornographic movies to loosen their Faith and Islamic motifs in their lives and call it “supporting secularism and education.” My being against that law and my addressee’s is not the same. Anyhow, I replied to him: “Suppose, I am a proponent of the prohibitions. But when you are against my being so, don’t you see that you are also one of those proponents of prohibitions?” Well, here is what I mean: When discussing some of the issues, hasty and false conclusions are reached and imposed on people. People are conditioned to think within certain prejudices or thought. For example, one says, “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of!” When you hear the responses to this complaint, one who is against this opinion might as well say: “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of but...” Why should it not be approved of?
The Weekly Cuma: Do you approve it?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We should first be reminded of some truths. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq; the well-known Halabja massacre. On the other hand, the systematic torture and oppression on the Kirkuk Turks have continued for years. There was nobody to object to this, was there? Who sold the weapons to Saddam who used them in the genocide there?
The Weekly Cuma: The issue was considered to be an internal affair of Iraq or that was how it was regarded then.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: This is a very significant point to be emphasized. The territories of a country are not created by justice or injustice but by de facto situations. After a while, Kuwait may be included into the Iraq’s internal affairs. Today, the main concern of the West; I deliberately say “the West”, instead of the world, is not the sense of justice but the fear of a break in their imperialist order. And the other countries are just their subjects; they are the slaves; the bit players. The United States of America invaded Panama to nobody’s objection; who could do anything against it? As for the question whether I approve Saddam’s Kuwait invasion or not, my reply will be a resounding “yes!”
The Weekly Cuma: Then, what could be the aftermath of this issue or the pros and cons for Turkey?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: If you do not mind, I would like the remind you of what I said at the beginning. I said, what is of importance to me is to understand the depths of the issue and use it as the motivating fuel of the Islamic movement. This is the attitude of a man of action and of idea; in other words, one that catches the essential meaning which causes and directs all other events, grasps the fundamental concept and quality from which all other details stem, finds out the soul of the corpse which is subject to that soul. When one is a journalist, he reports the news with comments or in bits and pieces of comments in accordance with his personality and puts some photographs relevant to the story. A scientist evaluates the things within certain criteria. The reason why I say all this is well, I am not a journalist and there is no point in repeating the same news in my own words here. Now that I specified my place as a locus of abstraction and intuition, I’ll tell you the beneficial aspect of all this for Turkey: Turkey will not be able to live within the policy, or rather, the policy-less-ness of “Peace at home, peace in the world.” These conditions warn that the existence of anyone who indicates no dominant will to survive or makes no significant effort to grasp the core of things and who is not equipped with a supreme goal and ideal which those efforts are to be based on will be wiped off the map. Everything is against such apathy of a corpse now. Can there a greater pro or benefit than this?
The Weekly Cuma: Can you please clarify it?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By nature, spiritual enthusiasm in a society from the individual to the family, as its expression, has certain outer appearances and images to keep. What can be accomplished with what facilities and how can you find those chances to reach wherever you want to? Even the simple act of eating food is an expression of a policy motivating our faculties as a desire stemming from our own body to survive. Only in a soul-less corpse is there no desire to attack and carry on. When we look at the history of the foreign policy of Turkey, we see that it resembles a debtor trying to run away from his creditors always. Now, look at the situation: Greece snatched the twelve islands in the Aegean Sea and has now abused the concept of territorial waters and it is about to lay claim to that zone from end to end. Moreover, it is ready to consider the Turkish ferryboats sailing from Izmir to Istanbul to be moving inside the Greek territorial waters. Greece again attempted to annex Cyprus and retains the memory of a Greek Istanbul and has dreams about it in the future conditions; Syria is in attempts to annex Hatay; Iraq, in need of water, and therefore longs to control Southeastern Anatolia along with targeting the Russia-Iskenderun line as a means to be used in a Middle East strategy, etc. And Turkey, like a poor and idle man who pretends to be pretty well off and victimized by the consolation of “peace at home, peace in the world,” by those who have no idea what image to give at home or abroad, was brought to a totally different point now. A powerful Iraq is not at all convenient for Turkey; however, if Turkey supports the United States of America, all the other countries involved in the issue will regard it as a Western pawn in the Middle East. That is, a lose/lose situation. To put it briefly, all the internal and external conditions actually force Turkey to accomplish its mission, to a great Islamic emergence and to the leadership of the world of Islam. This is the only raison d’etre for Turkey. To me, the benefit of all this is covered by this warning!
The Weekly Cuma: You said that you approved of Saddam Hussein’s move.
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I have already said that the territories of a country are created by de facto events. Now, let us go back to the matter of justice or injustice. Without repeating the already known news, I am going to tell you briefly: Iraq had to do it. It was like an attempt of a man to eat a lion in order not to die of hunger. On the other hand, there is this puppet state who could not, in any sense, demonstrate any distinctive quality in depth or width other than being an Arab tribe. To erase this country from the global map is beneficial, in terms of the requirement of the grand existence of the Middle East, both as a step to a well-organized image of the Middle East and as a means to destroy the imperialist powers and to stir the world for this purpose. The Western policies which drew territories on sand and caused the peoples of the Middle East to fight against one another along these territories are now in a dilemma. If Saddam Hussein had handled it more tactfully, for instance, as necessary Islamic policies not out of a material gain or desire, he would be a real hero. What was Kuwait but a treacherous country who poured all its oil income, ignoring the poor Islamic world, to the West?
The Weekly Cuma: They say that the world had just entered a period of relaxation and peace when Saddam made a hash of something. What do you think about that?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, here is the time to mention our dear deceased Grand master and demonstrate what it is to give a strong grasp of things! In order to give the best response to this story of “relaxation,” I would like to read one of his articles written at the end of 1970s. Here, let me read it to you:
“Since we are in the alarming worry about the missing order at home of our own, we seem to ignore the outside indicators which threaten us with a terrible destruction. The greatest events of the recent weeks is the inclination for the agreement of disarmament between the US and Russia. In fact, this is not a real disarmament but a tactic as the non-use of weapons against each other. It should be very well understood that, Turkey has been able to stand up thanks to the opposite winds blowing from the East and the West since the Second World War. These winds clash with each other right above us and somewhat support our country weakened by its own troubles. In other words, this is what has helped us maintain the temporary and artificial balance so far. The harmony between the United States of America and Russia should make us nervous before anybody else; we should be alarmed and decide where and how we should seek our right to exist in the future. Such a harmony which might sound to be favoring peace and relaxation in the world will most probably result in profit-distribution between Russian and the US in the Near and Middle East Region and particularly in oil-supplying regions. This mutual smile and shaking-hands between the lion and the tiger of course should frighten the herd of deer in the forest but do they really understand, intuit or see this danger and is there anyone taking action?”
Here is a comment as fresh as it has been just written. They feel their empire is at a decline and they now put all their efforts to regain their strength through a new structure, and we take this period as “peace in the world!” Now, imagine a man. He is beating another man, battering and punching him, and becoming exhausted after a while. As soon as the other man raises his hand, some peacemakers start objecting to it: “Look, he is not hitting you at the moment, why should you beat him; it is pointless, isn’t it?”
Throughout history, each era has its own limits and conditions, along with the balances which are advantageous for some and disadvantageous for the others. And that era is not the end of everything but a link in the chain of Human History. Otherwise, any action resisting against exploitation, oppression and slavery would indicate a breakdown in peace and balance. After all, the self-evident truth clearly shows itself: what on earth are the Western world and the United States doing in the Middle East?
The Weekly Cuma: What do you think about the embargo imposed on Iraq?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, I would like to emphasize one point clearly: It is a shame that Turkey overtly plays a role of guard of the West and the United State of America in the Middle East and support them. As for the embargo issue, one should first think about the answer of the following question: “While waiting for Iraq to be dissolved by the embargo, do you also take into account that embargo itself can dissolve the agents of the embargo as well?” In my opinion, this is where it comes down to: Apart from all this small political tradesmanship, the world is on the verge of chaos, in which all the small and spiritually unsupported dreams are destroyed and all the significant accounts are settled; and now it has become impregnated with many huge and unexpected changes!
The Weekly Cuma: Anything you would like to add or any message?
Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I would like all the members of our congregation to emphasize to themselves these points: they should be professionally organizing and leading the amateur activities on behalf of a true idea and they should be feeding and supporting the professional activities within an amateur fashion and excitement and will to support. They should be active actors of the stance they take rather than talkative spectators of the events. Our stance has nothing to do with the trivial; it has to do with Islam per se!
(The Weekly Cuma - October 1990)

Chapter III

Just like olive oil, lemon and egg as essential ingredients of “mayonnaise,” the West in the Western point of view is actually based on three fundamental essentials: Ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity. Therefore, the Occident is extremely precise and arithmetical while endorsing and signing its own analysis report as this. The West briefly describes itself with the following words, belonging to one of its greatest thinkers:
“Any sample which Romanized and Christianized and submitted itself to ancient Greek mental order is European.”
And Ancient Greek, again within the style of a great Western thinker, and likewise which can be categorized as chemical analysis, is described as:
“Dominant intellect, precise reasoning, sound knowledge, manifestness, light and clarity.”
The Occidental men believe that they have received the geometry of his emotions, the criteria for the Meaning over all forms and the method of his contemplation from Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greek impact, according to them, provided the superior man with everything and made the superior man the essence of everything and requires him to knead and shape and grasp things in the clearest, brightest, and most harmonious fashion possible. The Occidental man says:
“For the first time, it inculcated the attention to soul and material into the human beings; it trained the soul to defend itself against the gaps of imagination and dreams and it curbed the delusive and ambiguous products of soul through a faculty of a subtle analysis and critique!”
And now there emerges science within this order of contemplation; science, which is the exclusive sign of a private and definite victory and the unique distinctive feature of the West and Western spirit.
And Rome, in the eyes of the man from the Occident is the eternal sample of the organized and well-founded power of man:
“The state, the empire, institution, law, order, organization, sense of superiority, understanding of act, a body woven by strong muscles as individual and society, the chariot of triumph, the arch of triumph, and the spirit of pressure dominating everywhere.”
Christianity: At this point, the central viewpoint of the West is that, after the impact of Ancient Greece and Rome, they found the source of their sensitivity, morality and inward universe they need in Christianity. According to them, Christianity is an expression of a need to represent immersing into the spiritual, de-materialization, an internal life, inner morality and inner view as it has been in India for centuries and once during the time of the Alexandrian mystics. According to them, Christianity provides the most sublime, most essential, most productive and potent features for the soul; man centers faith and Reason, observation and verification, idea and action, product and aim, freedom and sacrifice, judgment and mercy, right and justice, individual and society, man and woman and consequently the contrast and harmony between material and spiritual forces within the light shed by Christianity.
What the European means by this is that Ancient Greece is the unique source which provides the order of mind based on sound emotions and ideas for the mystery of connection and relationship between man and nature. And Rome is the consciousness of power and domination which elevated this order of mind to the most dominant and royal form on the most vast of scale. And Christianity is the center of interpretation, sensitivity and morality, at the deepest level, of the conditions mentioned above. Thus, what the European means by this is that the Occident has a three-unit identity consisting of the pleasure of geometric perception which makes man accountable for material dominance, the imperial organization of this enthusiasm and the world of inner emotions which perpetuates a spiritual balance at the deepest level.

Yes, it was the Westerners who first distinguished West from East. In Ancient Greece, looking at the Persian masses who rammed the Occident from the direction of the East and the Occidental world which he thought to be the only western community (in fact, it was as to meaning, at that time), the father of history, Herodotus distinguished the East and the West as two separate worlds in terms of the difference between the abstract essence of thoughts and emotions: the Occident and the Orient. And since that day, although the Occidental man saw that the Oriental world was broken into different and opposing spiritual climates in itself, and knew that the Oriental world witnessed a lot of rebirths and changes during the course of time before the appearance of the West, he sought a stable spirit and mood in this picture. As in Ancient Greece and Rome, the Occidental man, especially after the Renaissance and until today, decidedly associated the Orient with a specific and guilty descent of man. Briefly and roughly, this is the core of this meaning of the East:
“A group of silly and desperate people who are unable to understand the geometric warning and requirement of facts, and exposing its shell and skin to any impact without possessing and protecting itself while running after confused imaginations!”
The West’s view of the Orient emerged and was established after the Renaissance as above, and was very similar to the same view from a different angle, during the time of Ancient Greece and Rome:
“The Orient is a den of wild men knowing nothing but blind and deaf physical force, and insensitive genius of acting aggressively and violently!”
The Orient with all its parts as a whole, in the eyes of the Occident with all its eras as a whole, represents a ruthless wild man while attacking; and a fool without any idea in mind while defending itself. After the Renaissance this description became nailed in the Western mind just like the axiom “the earth is round,” became common knowledge, particularly, of the vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men. For some other Occidental intellectuals, on the other hand, who were able to reach out to the fake and inadequate aspects of the Occident, the Orient, despite everything, was a horizon of intricacy and wonders, source of prophets and cradle of spiritual climates, which preserves its complicated depth and personality, far from a cause that can be imprisoned into a multiplication chart. However, mostly, the Occidental men, who has not only an average level of perception but also fairness, can turn their most conscientious and understanding look towards the Orient only when they see a piece of diamond on the turban of an Indian raja in Piccadilly; that is, a view which cannot go beyond a simple fantasy and dream of “One Thousand and One Nights.” Let us quickly note the fact that until now, the vulgar herd of the Oriental literate men (who could question neither his friend nor his enemy in the chaotic environment when a critique is needed between the two worlds) who were influenced by the vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men and started to view the world through their glasses; in order to see the recent stage of the issue, it is sufficient to look at the herd of cows who are pleased to hear the efforts against the spirit of jihad (holy war) by the West who spills the blood of the innocent everywhere yet describes the Islamic movement as “terror or savagery.” That the rote-learned words of Islamic and non-Islamic groups such as “living together in democracy” or “boons of democracy” and that the existing puppet secular regime has been consciously or unconsciously kept alive through this means, is another example of Western thinking and lifestyle that can be seen in our country.
After the Renaissance, in the eyes of the “notable” vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men and omnipresent information distributors, the Orient, is a huge world of excessiveness (lacking criteria) and unawareness which is unable to build an interrelated network for human and social beliefs and becomings, distancing the individual from their natural right and capability to take an interest in everything and inspect, ignoring the value of the individual and which is nothing but a few spiritual colors and expressions. To the “notable” vulgar herd of the Occidental literate men (who are quite powerful, indeed), here is the implied and wider description of the Oriental:
“The Oriental man lives always in the past, cannot fight to grasp the present and is afraid of reaching out to the future. He has neither science nor critical analysis. He can be religious but he never seeks cause and effect chain. He believes in anything but never bothers himself in any topic as to description, comprehension or proof. In other words, he knows neither what to believe nor what not to believe. He just believes; he is not interested in ‘knowing’ part. He cannot go beyond the games of poem and talismans in order to dominate nature. He can never invent any tool or method, which shows the right to penetration belonging to Reason over material elements. In the Oriental mind, you cannot find any element which can be counted by finger or seeable by eyes or measured by hand span or proved by Reason. He believes in all that cannot be proved and is obsessed with bodiless entities; therefore, he gradually lost the world of real facts. The Oriental man has to remain superficial and incapable no matter how skillfully adopts the Western discoveries and inventions of machines and devices, because he will never be able to grasp the essence of cause together with its own spirit and method. Whenever the Oriental man longs for pure science, natural sciences, outer world, triumphs over the outer world, freedom, the relationships between individual and society, systematic right and order, all sorts of geometric measurements, anything that has a criterion and measure outside, all kinds of fine arts, literature that embraces whole life, he is doomed to be a ridiculous and idle imitator of the Occident!”
This is the Occidental diagnosis of the Oriental man on the autopsy table. The rough eye of Reason and arithmetic calculation that cannot go into the depths of secrets and expects, to no avail, to be able to grasp the inner “spiritual” flexion of the heart by means of observing the outer convolutions belonging to a piece of flesh!

The critical aspect of the issue is determining the way the East will regard the West when the core of all the findings belonging to the past and history is taken into consideration, and it should be looking from the very pole of the truth just like looking at the world from outer space, not through the artificial and limited necessities of the relativities of distance and direction. The judgment of a mind who analyzed the West, together with the East, through penetrating into its deepest roots and also scrutinizing it in fibers, will reveal the fact that the West is nothing but a wonder of sapless Reason which is in close relation and touch with material domain from end to end. If you want you can call the West a huge logarithmic chart which makes the relationships between all the elements of the immensely wide but superficial material domain scientific rules. The West found the soul of the sapless Reason chart it possesses in value of delectation, sensitivity and gracefulness which cannot go beyond a sort of outer appearance mostly in plastic forms. However, note this expression; it is a soul which cannot go beyond the framework of plasticity in most situations, that is, the outside relief of things and events or spatial merriment. All western cities, squares, streets, attitudes, and samples of art and ideas can witness the precision of this description without exception; the West is the huge ground for the ultimate capability of Reason which was entirely dedicated to a genius of mold, which can only chisel the substance and shape life within thousands of fields of labor and utility. This mentality was given to the West by the genius of Ancient Greek and Latin which were the magnificent sources of rhythm and harmony, geometry and ratio, measurement and balance, brightness and clarity invariably at a plastic level. This, through the deep breath given out by the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) from the East toward the West, reverberated as sparks of morality and sensitivity as a thorough unit despite thousands of falsifications and personifications. However, the Western man always remained faithful to his nature and invariably scrutinized the shallow material world and passed through the labyrinth of the Middle Ages and attained the highest product of its own right after the age called “Renaissance, reawakening”: Positive science. The West consists of a single thing, at its maturity, be it vital or not:
“An ambition to grasp the material things both mentally and spiritually and the system of exact sciences as a consequence of this ambition.”
Alas, there is still one thing missing in this magnificent “mold” genius of the West:
“The vital juice, the sap in the mold; that is, the root of soul with an endless depth.”

The crisis in the West started to ooze out of the skin in the second half of the Nineteenth century. And in the beginning of the Twentieth century, the crisis broke out and surrounded the whole structure, as a fire, inwards and outwards:
“The epileptic and convulsive poets of the Nineteenth century French literature, like Baudelaire and Rimbaud, were the messengers of this social mood subconsciously at the individual level. One can explain this crisis as the inner man’s loss of all his supports one by one on this material ground surrounded thoroughly by a thousand tools of its exact sciences!”
In the second half of the Nineteenth century and at the beginning of the Twentieth century, the Western man started to dominate the material elements so powerfully that they needed to connect this dominance to a well-matched spiritual root, which they failed in doing. Moreover, since their former roots gradually dissolved, they started to be dominated by the material elements themselves; thus, his soul started to drain away, oozing out of an indefinite tear. And, in an inversely proportional manner, as the material sciences progressed, the Western world, like an hourglass whose bottom is full when the top part is empty and vice versa, started to feel with its convulsions that its spiritual balance, which is the source of the harmony sculpting, is about to get lost for good. In one single turn of your head towards the West, you can see the insurrectional consequences of this crisis (whose spiritual and main knot we are trying to explain) at social, economic, administrative and political levels:
“Starting from the Nineteenth century, Western thought became a chain of skepticism and convulsion, and this skepticism and convulsion as a nature of denial penetrated into everywhere, from pure science and art to the exact sciences. Among the prominent figures, as exemplifying this era, were Nietzsche, the sufferer of melancholy and seeker of a new authority and competence for the Western man who was experiencing the darkness in philosophy as the ultimate state of the West; Heidegger, the founder of the philosophy of ‘Angst’ (anxiety); Bergson, the destroyer of the sapless Reason; Freud, the organizer of hidden spiritual knots in a systematic way. Although the First World War is a simple material movement as to the secrets underlying it when compared to the Second World War, it, as an astounding matter for the first time in the history of humanity in terms of the material and quantitative ground it covered and boiled up, became a gigantic statue of the Western spiritual crisis waiting to be materialized for at least a century, just like the huge crowds of people produced typhus. While the communist revolution, on the one hand, in terms of diagnosing thousands of contradictions and expressions of decay in the social life of the West, proved to be positive but in terms of searching for a cure for it, as the worst experience of all, represented the suicide of the Western intellectuals for the sake of resurrection, when it attempted to solve the spiritual and systemic chaos through resorting to the destruction of all the spiritual values and hoping for help from the most artificial and material order. On the other hand, the fascism and Nazism, under a new banner of faith and ideal, attached all the right to authority and competence of Greco-Latin civilization to certain communities in a psychologically selfish mood, and groundlessly imagined it would find a cure for the Western crisis. Therefore, the Western crisis, due to the contradictions and incongruities which grew as large as a state like a tumor, developed to produce the Second World War which was a truly great war of ideology; in other words, the West reached the final stage of its crisis where it would find either a complete cure or a complete destruction. Democracies which were thought of the liberation of the West and which were wanted to be destroyed and eliminated by the two negative poles of the West in different times and spaces, and which were the grounds of both cause and cure of the Western crisis, magnificently seized power after a period of material and spiritual stagnancy and with a move to generate another order for humanity from its own structure; and the greatest account of self of the Western hero was seized by the main inheritors of the ‘Greco-Latin’ civilization. The fate of the West would be clarified only after this very act of seizing.”

While the East, indicating a disorganized picture in different times and places and within different frameworks of manifestation, although they are all from the same spiritual root in terms of a general and intrinsic character, the West represents one single unity divided and established in Western nations. This unity has certain origins and turning points with all their specific causes and effects:
“Ancient Greece; a very sudden and unexpected miracle of individual and society. Rome; the bridge which allowed the light to be received from Ancient Greece by adding new glitters from the Latin spirit. Christianity; the brand new yeast of the sensitivity of the West. The Middle Ages; the pitch dark labyrinth of the West in which it matured smoldering, devoid of the past income of the West, candidate to inherit the legacy of the future but ignorant of all. Renaissance, reawakening; the soul’s attempt, at one go, to fly towards the first lights of dawn in order to find itself in a new composition with the need stemming from Reason to dominate the material world. And the harmony happened right after this liberating move causing the Western cauldron to overflow and then the division of its content to the other nations and after a few stages, the generation of Reason, the exact sciences which thoroughly and tightly embrace all things and events. In between, despite the wizardly moves taken further, the epileptic convulsions of losing the soul and balance of it.”
When the issue is reduced to the issue of races and nations, the greatest share of the capital should be first given to Ancient Greece; the right to run this capital with fresh additions should be given to the Romans; and to the groups of Latins, German and Anglo-Saxons which produced national categories afterwards. In the formation of the West, the Latin represents the subtlety and intricacy of the Occidental man’s pure mind and emotions within his inextricably intertwined nature; the Germans and Anglo-Saxons represents the Occidental man’s criterion for dominating the world outside and positively benefiting from them with a truly balanced combination of mind and spirit; and Slavs represent the effort to follow and catch them up, and the United States of America is:
“A formation that was produced by these parts boiled over to the westerly direction later called ‘the New World.’ That is, ‘the Americas’, unfamiliar to the ordeal of soul and harmony which was about to disappear in the West; concentrated on material world and accelerated owing to this material merriment and just not so old as to experience its own crisis; a wonder of quantity, a formation not within but in the margins of the West.”
As a consequence, despite the magnificent genius of mold it possesses, the West lacked one thing:
“The vital juice of life in that mold; that is, the spiritual root with an endless depth.”

As it is known, the word crisis is very widely heard in today’s world in relation to domains and relationships such as individual, between individual and society, between structure of society and structure of state, between states, between various social groups and classes in a society, briefly all the “relationships” and “Becomings-institutions” of individual and social life which is entangled with it. Crisis, in addition to the meaning that describes the situation of the “underdeveloped countries” who became so because of the political and strategic concepts, which are based on economic benefits, of the imperialist countries, as it is already known, is a world-wide expression of a situation covering all sorts of relationships and Becomings ranging from part to the whole or vice versa.

If the conviction that the West is wherever the Western way of thinking and living have reached is accepted within the principles of the nobility of the “authentic” and banality of the “imitation,” in the middle of all these contradictions and incoherencies, we may have indicated the reason for the world crisis in terms of idea and direction along a line extending from individual to the state; that is, the West. While humanity was going in circles around a dilemma like a miller’s horse and the horrible cries reach the heavens and systems can show no truth but the mistakes committed by the users, one actually sees the contemporary picture of Western thinking and living, as an outline of its sociological, psychological and political structure, which is principally formulated as “Greek Reason, Roman order and Christian morality.” In other words, this is the vision of the mistake which can be seen at the end of its own evolution. An American woman scientist who became Muslim explains this wonderfully:
“The evil nature of the Western civilization is not incidental; or it is not a defect stemming from not living according to its major principles as solely a weakness of humans. What it lacks is particularly the major principles; the Western civilization is evil both theoretically and practically.”

The mistakes of the systems which have widespread applications in our age, are not because of some false applications of the system, but because of the inability to obtain the “absolute principles” with these systems that are established by limited data of experience and observation; because, the events give the responses in accordance with the questions asked to them, and therefore, when they are evaluated by different consciousness, mind and understanding, different consequences are obtained accordingly.

As we are aware of the fact that there can be no true activity of thought without a true thought and that the truth changes according to any different consciousness, mind and understanding, we see that we have no system that we can apply. We can either remain mere spectators or interpret events, things and human beings through the lens of a super-human idea. This provides the only hope we can have. Either “Islam-the Absolute Idea” which shows the truth within the absolute framework to every perception who is seeking it, or nothing.

While it is a clear fact that the relationships between elements should be understood on the basis of the “Complete Idea,” the systems established through general knowledge instead of the “Absolute Knowledge” can be resembled to the attempts in the well known cliche: “to fit the man to the clothes, instead of fitting the clothes to the man.” It is clear, in the effort to reach a composition other than that of the society we live in, the theory set through general knowledge is a sort of compelling faith which forces induction according to this assumption, because it is seen as a deductive point around which everything is turned and integrated, and it is not exactly accurate but desired to be so.
As a matter of fact, a social philosophy emerges when an existing community is unable to solve the inner or outer problems with the traditional forms, when the current hierarchy and law in that community becomes insufficient and when new strata for administration are produced, in short, when there is a disorder in society. Needless to say, what is needed here is ideas that can be applied systematically when there is a difficulty or a problem related to common life along with the issues caused by other matters. We see that this is a typical situation producing social thoughts in history and thus these thoughts are the life’s answers which are given to issues being constantly produced by the common run. So, what cannot be a social thought becomes clear; because, a social thought has a definite historical place. This historical place is actually a need emerging at a certain time and the social thought in effort to solve has been produced in response to that need.
Regarding to all these, the principles of the French Revolution emerged as an answer to some needs, however, all these principles proved to be false at the latest stage. The origin of the contemporary crisis, before all else, is the incapability of institutionalization of the relationships between humans while showing or describing the source of power by resorting to false systems, as well as the consuming effect of technology, which is lacking its “humanly” interpretation, on the classical values within the Western social structure.

Especially since the French Revolution in 1789, there has been this issue of “seeking the source of sovereignty in people,” which has become widespread both as a thought at every turn and a clause in the laws. In its essence lies the intervention of the Church into the society through Middle Ages, the despotism of feudal lords and their seeing people as their goods, and the protest against the oppression and arbitrary administration of prerogative position of the “king who was assigned by God”:
“The picture is quite clear during the period of the three Louises, at the beginning and end of the Eighteenth century. As opposed to such a cruel understanding which can go to the extent of saying ‘L’État c’est Moi’ (I am the state), humanity sought only the freedom of individuals. They did not pursue an idea related to the freedom and right to equality, justice and equity among individuals. They could not. Finally the French Revolution was the result. The reason why it is an incredible revolution lies in the fact that in the Middle Ages, in the darkness of this period, it took centuries to find out the idea that a king, too, might err; that the King is a human being just like you and me. Upon realizing this, revolution broke out.”
In the points we indicated, we can see why the view “seeking the source of sovereignty in people” is against “theocracy” as well. We will also show that Islam presented in the Western categorizations has nothing to do with the administrative forms like “monarchy” and “theocracy” within this framework. Let us continue:
“According to the view of national sovereignty, the owner and source of the superior power and dominant force is the society which has a particular personality, consciousness and will. The view of public sovereignty, on the other hand, finds the superior power not in an incorporeal entity (nation) other than the individuals comprising it, but directly in those individuals themselves, and everything is determined by the majority of these individuals, each of whom owns a part of this superior power.”
The first view has been criticized because the society cannot have a real personality and will independent of the individuals comprising it, thus will and personality can be a consideration only for real persons; and the second view has been criticized because a superior power cannot be broken into pieces. For both views, it is impossible to explain how the use of power is transferred to real person in terms of legitimacy. As a result of the theoretical criticism of the “national sovereignty”, the view of “sovereignty of people” developed and sought the source of power again in people; but in this case, some significant issues come up such as: through what rules the individuals in a society show their will, who set such rules as “you are to show your will in accordance with those compulsory conditions,” and whether a real will can be shown through these regulations; of course, it cannot be shown. We should indicate that it is only foolish to measure the “truth” by the number of the crowd, which produces the piece of nonsense “the majority is right.” So, if we are to put it briefly:
“With all these views, which cannot present a consistent explanation about the source of power and about whose the will is and about what justifies the use of power, it is impossible to combine the administrator and the administrated at a “real” and “fair” point and to establish a social structure at the level of “the Good, the True and the Beautiful.”

In terms of categories, we see that there are almost no contemporary democratic, fascist or socialist regimes which do not claim in some way that their regimes are based on “people” or “nation” or “sovereignty of people”. In accordance with this, the government in power which is described as “decision-makers and directors,” as qualified by its practices, takes its origin from society. The actual use of it is given to real persons by society or real persons use this power, whose origin is in society, in the name of society.
Regarding their claims, the distinction between the democratic, fascist or socialist regimes is related to “the legal and political procedures of passing the power from society to real persons.” In other words, the distinguishing point between the descriptions (of one another) of these regimes is seen not in the source of power (who should be the source) but whether or not the domination of the society would be accomplished through the current legal and political procedures.
If we are to evaluate this reactive consequence, in a Western way of idea categorization, against (apart from the issue of the emergence of despotic regimes such as Nazism and fascism which brought the power from the sky to the earth) the despotism of “L’État c’est Moi” (I am the state), opposed by individuals and as generated by the ideas over the “common good-common benefit,” we can see that, especially along the line developed since the Eighteenth century until our age, all regimes have adapted themselves to the views which “seek the source of power in people.”
The concepts of “common good” and “common benefit” are the ones taking root from a need which highlights “the present time-practical benefit”. This need highlighting those concepts is a result of philosophy’s being unable to find whatever it seeks moving in a closed circle and also unable to arrange the practical life in accordance with the truth of life, mainly as a result of the reaction to the arbitrariness of the kings and to the Church, and within this framework, as a result of being incapable of indicating the relationship between “justice and injustice” and “the truth.”
As opposed to the confession of pragmatism (a school of thought) that “the situation of human being in the universe is like a cat in the library; it listens to and sees but understands nothing,” the regimes which regard themselves as an exception to this statement bring the source and legitimacy of power from “the skies to the earth” and show it in society and then in individual accordingly and decide on the concept of “the nation’s sovereignty/the people’s power,” they in fact resemble the cat in the library; this is the embarrassed confession of their fundamental mistake and being incapable of indicating the truth. Again, this is the reason why there is always an incongruity between “common good” and “truth.” Their justice too, comes at the point of stealing the rights of the society or individual.
However, in the question “whose is the power?” the controversial issue is who gave the authority to command and make decisions, and to whom and in the name of whom and who set the rules to do so, also the meanings of people, nation and class, and where to begin and end the limits. Nevertheless the reality is that the people form only the subject of the “command and decision.” Here, we clearly see the inconsistency between the reality and that which is claimed. “Sovereign”(!) nation, who have no authority to command and make decisions (this is the main characteristic of the power) and “sovereign”(!) nation who only form the subject of the command and decision. This demonstrates how fictitious and baseless the statement “Sovereignty belongs to People” really is. As a consequence:
“The contemporary regimes which we describe the quality of their power as democratic, fascist and socialist actually demonstrate what power is not and simply does not show whom it is on behalf of.”

A regime is the active form of a model, that is, the active form of a “social system” which previously was only a model in mind; and the characteristic of a government in power is determined by the existing regime. Apart from the issues: whether these systems of ideas are explanatory universally (some claim to be), which they should be so; whether they are accurate; whether the relevant social systems, which are to be established under the light of them, are applicable; why the regimes alienate from the system or do not alienate; first of all, a system is the criterion by which the accurateness of the application will be inspected in social life, as well as the objective that is to be accomplished. Within the same framework, if the explanation of a social system on “in the name of whom the power is to be used, to be ruled” is not the expression of the “truth,” the legitimacy of practicing of power cannot be explained either. And, if one does not explain the source of power in the “absolute” way, they may have no legitimate reason to use that power. No matter what regime it is, the acceptance of the dominance of the human will over human beings is actually nothing but becoming only a tail on another human being’s behind. In such situations, one cannot talk about the “fairness” of that system or application. What we have here is this: a minority trying to impose their wishes and will on the “people” or the “nation”, for this purpose, the will of the minority is shown as the will of the “people” or the “nation” through word games; and they try to legitimate this de facto situation in which “whoever obtains the power, since he is able to make his will the dominant one, is right.” Ultimately, this justifies the situation in any regime in which the ones who are administered by anything other than ABSOLUTE IDEA do not obey the administrators.

Considering all the points we emphasized so far, we may now move on to analyzing democracy, which finds acceptance both in the world and in our country, as the “unique pretty thing”.

Since a very early time, one may have seen various descriptions and explanations of democracy. When talking about the types of states and governments, there is a widespread habit of categorizing them into three general types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. By the way, let us point out the following fact:
“The word government means the power used by the state agencies as well as the agency using this power. This concept sometimes expresses all the boards using the power including the 'Great National Assembly' and sometimes it targets only the 'Council of Ministers.' In short, the government is a part and an organ of the state.”

In a rather cliche description, democracy is the people’s administration, based on the principle of equality and in which the power agents cannot do any harm to the people since they are subject to them.

If in a state, the power belongs to only a part of the people it is called aristocracy, and if the power belongs to all the people, it is called democracy. When the power belongs to the people, the regime is said to be a democracy. Instead of all people, it can also be the majority of people, then:
“The power, in democratic regimes, belongs to the majority of people!”

A system is democratic as long as it accepts that the power belongs to the people and which provides for their direct participation in the system as much as possible.

Democratic administration is a governing regime which is based on the sovereignty of the people and in which administrators’ authority to use power can be obtained through the consent of the people as a subject to the political control of the people and whose underlying principles are freedom and justice.

In terms of the right to elect, the regime in which the right to rule belongs to the majority of people who have the right to elect is a democracy. As we have mentioned before, the article in the declaration made by the United States President Wilson during the First World War, which states; “Nations have the right to determine their own fate,” took the notion of democracy further than being an internal regime or law; and announced it to the entire world as the basis of international relations.

In democratic regimes, the power of the administrative agents is a function or authority based on the position which they occupy.

In democratic regimes, the actual owner of the power is the public, that is, the human element of the state embodied by individuals.

In democratic regimes, although power is a right which cannot be transferred, the ones who use this power are (compulsory) the representatives of the real owner, the citizen.

In democratic regimes, the power is temporary for those who use the power in the government or in administration.

In democratic regimes, the agents of the administration, during their use of the power, undertake penal, legal or political liabilities.

In democratic regimes, the public can enjoy their right to inspect the administrators through a political, administrative or judicial way.

In democratic regimes, before the Law, there is no difference between the administrators and the administrated.

As for the “the source of the sovereignty,” together with all those systems and regimes which declare that “sovereignty belongs to people,” democracy, too, is obviously rendered disabled by this groundlessness. Taking this into consideration, one can find a lot of descriptions based on “people’s sovereignty,” individual and liberal basics and freedom. Yet none of them is able to describe democracy in a clear way expected of any other description. None of them is able to explain, in particular, how “the right to rule” is going to be employed by the people. However, what they have in common is “the superiority of people’s will” as a characteristic; but none of them can sufficiently state the role and relationship of the social and economic structures of the society in order to execute this principle. In other words, it is regarded that being an individual of that society, a citizen, is a sufficient condition to enjoy this right to sovereignty. The type of democracy based on such an understanding is called “classical democracy-political democracy,” for its formal and political characteristics. Besides, the familiar historical samples named “people’s democracy, new democracy or Marxist democracy,” are just artificial democracies, with their great distance from the freedom that the soul and the very essence of democracy. Can democracy be described, in this case, through indicating the non-democratic ideas?

Language is a means to exchange ideas; however, it can also be used as a trick or concealing method to deceive others, even oneself. For example, we may talk about justice; nevertheless what we really mean is punishment and when it comes to benefiting from justice, what we actually mean is compassion, not to distribute justice. One might talk about the dominance of Reason, yet by “Reason” they in fact mean their own Reason. Take, for instance, the sanctity of freedom is uttered; yet the real intention of the speaker is, most often (and necessarily), to do whatever he wants to do and to be able to restrict others from doing what they wish to do. As a consequence, using the same word does not always suggest the same thing.
The point we made generally in terms of language is valid, in particular, for democracy as well. Rarely does a word in our political vocabulary challenge the logic and reason of human beings as much and demonstrate such a provoking feature in a fickle way. Even a causal glance at various doctrines formulated in contemporary literature is enough to see that there are as many definitions of democracy as the number of political thinkers, and that the multiple views are related not only to what democracy is or should be but also it is not. In fact, the views of some theorists considering what democracy is not became diverse, to an even strange extent, that one may feel confused and become entangled in contradictions and finally have to believe that there is no necessarily incongruity between democracy and dictatorship; that democracy is a sort of dictatorship, let alone being “against” it, and that it is possible to talk about both a “democratic dictatorship” and a “totalitarian democracy.”
It is difficult to argue against such linguistic jugglery; however, if democracy and dictatorship have real and different meanings limited to themselves, they should obviously have some fundamental criteria in order for us to distinguish one from the other. The distinctive characteristics of democracy, the clear distinction between it and other types of administration such as dictatorship and other forms of oligarchy, should be stated. These are practical elements which will make it possible that we understand what democracy is and what an anti-democratic idea is.
When analyzed within this regard, it will be seen that a democratic state is exactly different from any other types of states in terms of at least two basic elements. Firstly, it is free to encounter of opposing ideas and convictions. The other is the liability, based on the constitution, of administrators towards the people to be administered. Among all types of states, it is only the democratic state which allows, and is completely and inevitably based on, opposing views to get organized without any restriction, and only democracy regards the conflicts of ideas as the basis of the state. It is through this “main” freedom of ideas that the ones who are temporarily in power are responsible for those who are subject to this power; and people who are free to organize to express their distinct ideas and beliefs in a more effective way equally collaborate, as citizens, in the establishment of the order they live in. This idea has very significant consequences. First of all, it shows that democracy has no relevance with a certain type of government, be it by a mass or by a majority or by the people themselves.
Within this respect, democracy: “First of all...is a means to determine who to govern and within a general framework for what purposes to govern”; and secondly, it demonstrates that it is imperative for the decision makers be at least the majority, not just one or only a few persons. Furthermore, it points out that it is necessary to accept the decision of the majority as a practical way so that the will of the majority can be determined; and it includes the permanent authorization to oppose, organize and, when the time comes (the sufficient support is provided), to become the dominant majority. In other words, the sovereignty of the majority is an inevitable requirement of the democratic state; however, this majority is a fluctuating and temporary one and is never fixed. The minorities should always be free to carry out their opposition, and their struggle to obtain the political power should never be prevented or discouraged. These two elements are unique and the most essential qualifications of a democracy; elements which cannot be found in any other systems. No mentality or applications corresponding to this can be seen in any other type of state. When it is viewed within this framework, the doctrines of thought qualified as anti-democratic are the ones that only regard democracy impossible or argue that democracy is not a desirable way of administration:
“The former claims that free conflicts of ideas cannot have an essential impact on the policies and foundation of the government; the latter, on the other hand, asserts that these free conflicts of ideas should never have an essential impact on the policies and foundation of the government. The anti-democratic theories, besides, and in fact as a consequence of this, claim that the administrators cannot and should not be held responsible for the people they administer: They argue that the means of political power does and should belong to the minority, as opposed to the majority, and that such minorities do and should always dominate the state.”
These most significant aspects of the oligarchic thought indicate another similarly significant contradiction. The contradiction which is related not to the side the political power takes but to the scope of it is as follows:
“Although democracy is a necessarily limited state, an oligarchy can only be a totalitarian state. Despite Hegel’s views regarded as authority, people live outside the state as well as they live inside it. They may act outside the authorized limit of the political area. They live and think not only as political agents but also social entities. Since democracy constrains the area of state intervention and makes the area of thinking and even of culture outside the limits controlled by the state, it confirms the existence of these non-political facts and registers them as a constitutional base; and finally declares the exact difference between the state and society. However, oligarchy may or may not bother to show the difference. When it does not, which is the usual situation in a totalitarian dictatorships, the whole area of thinking and culture would be within the claws of the state, who intervenes into every activity. People do not have the right to have and express opposing ideas. Ideas are deprived of the possibility of shaping or improving the government policies. On the other hand, in the places where oligarchy respects the separation of areas between the state and society, as can been in the autocracies of intellectuals in the 18th century, ideas are free but ineffective; they are totally unauthorized in determining the government’s objectives or selecting its bodies. Therefore, in any place where any of these two conditions are prevalent, there is no democracy.”
Thus, so far we have seen the vital difference between the democratic and oligarchic concepts from another perspective. In the first one, thinking is free; in the second, it can be controlled. In a democracy, free thinking causes governments to come to power or fall from power. Free thinking draws and influences and shapes the outline of general politics. In oligarchies, be it free or controlled, thinking/ideas cannot play a major role as a driving force in shaping the political process. Ideas (if they support the party or elites in power) can receive protection from the people in official positions, yet it can neither administer nor have an impact on them. Democracy alone is based on free discussion of different ideas in order to survive. Oligarchy admits only one view; the view of the administration. This is the sharp line separating a democratic way of thinking from that of an oligarchy. This is the origin of all anti-democratic thoughts.

While making a definition of democracy as objective as possible within its own definition, we discover that its essential contradiction/inconsistency is in respect of freedom. The conclusive deadlock is as follows:
“Social order is primarily based on moral and historical process. Political regimes determine the way of operating this order and the constitution determines the rules with which to operate it. Under these circumstances, a protective attitude, on the political principles of state, is required. It is crystal clear: 'Is it possible to come up with a type of freedom of destroying freedom?' Is it necessary to acknowledge such a freedom in a democratic regime to those who aim at establishing an authoritarian regime? There are two reasons why we had to ask such a question: as to protecting and destroying this free order. Apart from the differences of these two situations, they overlap at one point. Is it possible to protect democratic order with non-democratic means? Is a democratic order supposed to acknowledge freedom of activity to ideologies and political forces which aim at destroying it?”
No to lose ourselves in verbiage, let us talk about the essence of all issue: if democracy became a condition which protects itself with forcibly imposed sanctions instead of inspirational force against ideologies and political forces that will terminate itself, there would be no democracy. After we have related the “the arrangement, distinction and protection of public freedom” within a textbook style, we will come back to this topic.

“There is point in talking about the attitudes of political power against public freedoms: not to get involved in the private sphere and to protect the individual in public sphere and save him from certain pressures. Thus, we have once again entered the territories of 'authority and freedom' and 'individual and state.' Whether individually or socially, the government in power will have to handle the issue of individual rights and freedoms. Limitless freedom, at an individual level, will definitely result in anarchy. If we start from the conviction that 'my freedom ends where your nose begins,' the necessity of a superior power to prevent us from harming others’ freedoms is crystal clear. At an individual level, although we can be against the government in power, we have to assign them to protect our freedoms, direct them, provide various and opposing interests with free space to move, and put them all in some type of order. However, while accomplishing this task, the essential point will always be to keep the freedoms extensive and not to harm them. Constitutions are the documents showing such cautions; because one cannot talk about freedom as long as there is no restriction on the political power. And this is what makes the topic so controversial. In a monarchic regime, the power is not 'We' and we have to walk in a line drawn by another authority which is not our own. Nevertheless, it is different in democracy, because it is 'We' who is both the power and the state itself. At this point we have to remember Montesquieu: 'The sovereignty of people is not always the freedom of them.' The bodies of power we institute, with the votes we give, can both administer and restrain us, while determining our freedoms. How can we prevent this danger? Which organ(s) should determine our freedoms: legislative bodies or executive bodies?”

Since 1789, the authority in determining the limits of freedom has been left to the legislative bodies; therefore, freedoms are arranged according to some certain laws. Arranging is in a way restraining. Now that the Law is an expression of national and public will, it cannot be a means for oppression. Therefore, the authority to arrange public freedom belongs only to the legislative agency, to the extent that it does not acknowledge any delegation in case of public freedoms, based on a republican tradition, even when the executive body is given the authority to change them through delegation, laws and decrees.
There is another reason why freedoms are arranged through law. To say that laws are the public expression of the common will is to say that the public has a role and contributes in making the laws. Laws, in a sense, can be regarded as a product of the people in a gradual way. To keep “execution”, which is a body that has to act within the Law, out of arranging freedoms is derived from the distinction and aspect of the source of the “superiority of law.” In this respect, the arrangement (via law alone) of the public freedoms is possible only in democracy.
If democracy is perceived absolutely as the dominance of an arithmetic majority, as a common argument, it is so easy for this majority to establish an oppressive regime with which to repress public's freedom. Therefore, it should not be forgotten that there are more “libertarian monarchies” than such democracies. Democracy is not a victory by numbers; but to act upon some certain democratic principles. To claim that a party supported by a majority can do whatever they want is as strange as saying that a dictator is in fact a libertarian. And even if law made by the vote of the majority legislates “general rules” and is “done by open negotiations and discussions,” the power established by the people can terminate the freedom of the people itself. In order to prevent this, it is necessary to establish some organizations like constitutional courts, in order to provide judiciary control.

The concept of “public order,” seen here and there in the constitution and laws, is in relation with limiting freedoms. The definition of public order is extremely difficult. What does “pubic order” actually mean? From the most objective point of view, at least, such concepts aim at providing necessary conditions for a social life to live securely, peacefully and healthily. If administrative bodies stop the excessive purchase of some particular goods in order to prevent black market, this is an economic requirement related to the peace and security of society. Yet, such cautions might also include prohibiting certain performances in a theatre.
Besides, “the substance of freedom” might change according to different world-views. What should a legislative agent do in order not to harm this substance? Constitutions do not explain this concept in their own texts; as a matter of fact, it is impossible to explain it. In such cases, the judiciary bodies develop Case law (precedential law-decisional law) after finding out the connections between events and principles. However, including these practices within the framework of Case law, these cases are all from Western samples and are within the current customs, traditions and moral values of that society, which shows that democracy is a “customary” regime. The point should be clear enough: Democracy is a “customary” regime which requires Western social structure, in regard to its birth, survival and capacity to settle the emerging issues related to it.

Can there be anything like the freedom of destroying freedom? The best example of this was given by the French Revolution. The revolution was made in the name of “sacred freedoms;” in order to live freely. Soon after that, the revolutionists who waved the flag of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen used the policy of “terror”: Their purpose was to intimidate the enemy inside the country and to arm the country against the enemy outside. Robespierre justified the horrible system he wanted to establish as follows:
“In order to reinforce democracy and to reach the happy dominance of laws, the war waged by freedom against despotism should continue and be finalized and go beyond the stormy straits of a revolution. People’s Government is based on virtues at peace; yet on both virtues and terror during a revolution. A policy of terror is nothing but an swift, rigid and merciless justice. Terror should not be regarded as an exception. Terror is a consequence of the principle of general democracy to be implemented so as to meet the immediate demands of the country, along with life itself. In the previous order, despotism wanted to repress freedom. On the contrary, during revolution, freedom will repress despotism; in this situation, the despotism of freedom on despotism will be talked about!”
The thesis of Robespierre would be completed by his comrade Saint-Just:
“You asked for the Republic; yet if you do not want the elements embodying the Republic, it would collapse on the whole country like a ruinous heap. What makes a republic a true republic is to thoroughly destroy everything that opposes it!”
The price paid for this philosophy of terror was very high: mass executions by hanging or shootings. Prisoners in Nantes were found drawn in the River Loire, and there were even babies among them. The corpses dragged by the sea to the coast of Nantes were so many that the sea water became poisoned and the municipality prohibited eating any fish. These events, however sincere they may be, demonstrate that the democratic order cannot be provided through non-libertarian ways. No doubt, corrupt revolutions may bring the order they demolished back, as a far more horrible regime. Revolutions should have an ideology and be based on moral values.

Within the plurality of democratic political life, as an obligation of this plurality, are those who want to destroy libertarian order supposed to be acknowledged this right? The issue pertains to the whole of public freedoms. Yet, it is particularly the issue of freedom of speech in a general sense and political parties. For example, are Islamist, communist or fascist parties supposed to be founded? According to the proponents: it is important to accept it with regards to not only individual freedoms but also the health of the democratic structure. For, democracy is both a regime to believe in and a regime to make others believe; to convince them to believe. As for the opponents, nobody has the right to accept “the destruction of freedom in advance.” A democratic regime has the right to protect itself like every other political and social order. A regime that remains an onlooker to its own destruction, actually denies itself. Watch that:
“The issue is not one that could be settled in a few lines, it is the issue of the age. The solution is related to the strength of democracy. If a democratic regime and democratic feeling is established in a strong fashion, the regime will of course be as much 'tolerant against its enemies' as the confidence it has in itself. It is impossible not to agree with this. However, first the understanding of democracy should be agreed upon. Then, the issue should be handled in terms of social structures (underdeveloped, overdeveloped); because the consequences one may get in the political life of an underdeveloped country are completely different.”
The trick here, I think, can be very easily seen: In terms of the strength it expressed about coming to power or not, the regime might be “tolerant” or “intolerant” against the opinions which are in opposition to its existence as a power. As for the matter of being “developed or underdeveloped,” let me point out a fact which is rarely stated: democracy is a regime of an advanced and industrialized country. It emerged in a liberal economic order; and, through “mass organizations” in which various social classes and groups can express themselves on this ground, obtained its own indispensable organs for its existence. As for the underdeveloped countries, we should simply note that, taking into consideration that the word “underdeveloped” might as well mean “undeveloped,” and most often it is so, the attempt at democracy for them can be expressed by nothing but “best comb for a bald head,” that is, a ridiculously showy thing. In order to understand this, one may simply look at the history of Turkish democracy, which is embroidered with military coups.
Within the framework of the principle of criticizing democracy not on the basis of ridiculous imitations of it but considering the original, let us look at the group who “do not want to acknowledge the freedom of destroying freedom”:
“The experience of the national-socialism... The characteristics of democracy as an active, reactive and fighting entity were especially prevalent (as a general tendency) during the Second World War. In the period between the two world wars, the Western democracy saw the totalitarianism of both communism and fascism. While this caused a war of ideologies, democracies were taught to make war in the Second World War. As a consequence, the issue was extended to the area of positive law and handled first in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then in the European Convention on Human Rights. Democracy, like every other social order, has the right to protect itself. However, this protection should not be based on a party’s, which is in fact a minority in the country as a whole, estimation and interests. And the tendency to see any new idea as dangerous is the safest way to destroy democracy and make it a screen for despotism of majorities, let alone protecting democratic order.”

The classification of public freedoms is as follows. Fundamental freedoms; those that cannot be surpassed by the political power: individual freedom, inviolability of domicile, safety, right to property, equity. Internal freedoms; (again which cannot be surpassed by the political power) freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religion and worship and freedom of teaching and education. Political and social behavioral freedoms are as follows: freedom of assembly, association, the press and communication.
Let us quickly remind ourselves that all these freedoms mentioned above, just as in the statement “your freedom is one thing, mine is another,” are like empty jugs that can be filled with any thing one wishes. And they are the types of freedoms some of which can be and are advocated by non-democratic regimes as well. Such freedoms are not within the monopoly of democracy.
Let us leave a note with regard to the aspect called “protection of public order”: the justifications brought forward about the public order to be protected, to the advantage of the regimes described as democratic, are valid also for the regimes who want to protect its own “public order!

Be the regime called as liberal democracy or people’s democracy, how come it does not have oligarchy in its scope? What matters is how this oligarchy emerged, how it employed the political power, and to what rules it is subject to while prevalent; and the price the community has to pay for it and what benefits it brings to the people. Other issues which can be numerously exemplified considering various aspects can be stated as follows:
1. First of all, who are the members of an oligarchy? Who are the members of this dominant minority and how easy is it to be one of them? Is the administrating minority more or less open to everyone or is it closed?
2. In any type of regime, what sort of persons have a chance to become part of the political staff?
3. What are the prerogatives given to the administrative minority?
4. What are the guarantees given to the public which is administrated in this type of regime?
5. Who holds the power indeed? And what is the meaning of the generally used phrase, “obtaining power?”

Our own interpretation of democracy will be covered in Chapter IV, which is titled “Grandsublime State”. Here, let me relate the view of “freedom” within the framework of the “Ideology of the Great East.”

Can a person be regarded as free when he is forced to say “I am free!”

Isn’t a person who is able to cry out “I am a slave” more free than those people who are a sort of false-free?

Where are the criteria that will draw the limit between the freedom of a donkey (animal freedom) and the freedom of a human being?

When we are a slave to the truth, why do we feel that we are so free to the last bubble of air in our lungs? Who is that sultan to whose slavery is the greatest of all freedoms?

While Allah says “There shall be no coercion in religion (in matters of faith)!” and shows how innately free man is and exempted from any type of coercion, how can one construe any attempt to hunt for conscience through assigning police to his lips?

When shall we be able to understand that freedom is a means to an end, not the end itself, as a right peculiar to the slaves of the truth?

Is the freedom meaningless when it is to be used against the doctor at a hospital, the commander in the army and the teacher in the classroom?

One who wants to search for the address of freedom, apart from a party or the name of a newspaper or a pedicure salon or capital under one’s belt or the statue in an American harbor, why does he not stick to Islam?

Unfettered, total freedom; that is, freedom without any brakes to refrain oneself, is limited even in animals. They were even somehow convinced, out of shame, to cover their excrement up with some earth!

Man has two opposite identities; one of which should be set free and crowned, and the other of which should be imprisoned and shackled, endowed to the same man, soul and self (Nafs). The soul finds freedom in being a slave to the truth. Self, on the other hand, takes it as doing whatever it desires and has no limit to the extent of claiming to be a god.

According to the Sufi criteria which we can call the topography of the man, that which covered every speck of the human soul, the self was created to be a screen against the divine light and it should absolutely be destroyed, bent and trampled in order to reach the great knowledge of Allah (Marifah). And just like the self is something that should be controlled individually, on the other hand, at the social level, it is a fact that inspires the authority of absolutism given to the social conscience, binding individuals to the social conscience.

In that case, whatever the self is against the soul on the individual level, the individual is what is against the social conscience on the social level; and on condition that its right is not given fully, as a Law of Creation for the survival of society, it has to stay completely bound by a disciplinary clamp.

The countries which demand freedom just for the sake of freedom are bound to be the slaves of others while they are running from being their own slaves.

Freedom is a means, not an end, and the end cannot be left aside to make an end out of a means.

“There shall be no coercion in religion (in matters of faith)!” That is, the freedom verified and granted by Allah with this decree is nothing but a means to conscience to reach the truth, just like the air needed to survive, and once the truth is reached, the greatest freedom, that is, to submit to the truth, will be revealed.

One may not find the “Right (haqq)” everywhere the freedom is revealed but when the “Right (haqq)” is revealed freedom cannot be defended.

The disaster seen in a place where freedom (for the sake of the Right/haqq) does not exist can never be greater than the disaster in a place where freedom (just for itself) exists. That is, submission to despotism is equal to submission to self.

While the original truth and source of everything, including freedom, is inside us, those who set up traps to destroy our magnificent and tremendous order, which was reached through a complete independence of conscience as its sacred meaning within its perfect geometry like a full honeycomb, provided us with freedom but in the opposite way of their understanding of freedom, that is, intentionally urging us to run wild. They made our souls slaves with a medal of so-called “freedom,” pinned on our breast, while the hidden side of that “freedom” remains unknown to us.

The ideal is a yearning; a longing; a dream and a plan, stated by an idea which desires to see its own applications and traces on things and events. And if we call ideology the brain, the ideal is the heart.

No desire or zeal or curiosity or behaviour can be ideal if it is based on a miserable idea. In order for it to be an ideal, it should set its vision on a nobility and maturity on the social level.

Each ideal is a goal but not every goal is an ideal. Goals can be of lower levels; ideals cannot.

It would not be an ideal for a military officer to have an ambition or goal to be the General of the Army; and for a tradesman to have an ambition or goal to be a millionaire. Yet, if that officer dreams about a “Golden Army” or if that tradesman is planning to have a fortune in order to later spend it on some social cause, then both types are idealists.

The best example for the great effort belonging to love, ecstasy, exertion and determination, which an ideal requires on the individual level, is Ferhad, who dug into the mountain in order to reach his love Sirin. The man in this case goes well beyond simply demanding a woman, made of bones and flesh. In our case, Sirin is a mystical element, a symbolic entity; that is, the “idea.”

All ideas that are believed in and attached inculcate into the subject an entrancement of the higher step and the next horizon to conquer further and beyond. And this is the ideal! This entrancement may go further until melancholy or insanity is the result.

On the other hand, nothing can be expected of those who are not melancholic or “insane,” out of his ideal. In Islam as the ideal of ideals, a person who performs his ritual prayer like a civil servant as though he signed out a record book insensitively cannot be called an idealist. However, the one whose ribs were making a crackling noise out of love and respect for the Shari'a when performing his ritual prayer such as Bayazid Bastami is the greatest idealist.

Within about 600-year Islamic state administration in the history of our country, the idealist period does not even exceed 250 years. And what happened to it afterwards must be related to the loss of this entrancement.

All those administrative, social, economic, cultural, educational, scientific, scholarly, disciplinary, moral (and whatever else) causes obtain their capability from that entrancement and any field of labor cannot take even one step forward without it.

The findings, diagnoses and truths we framed under "the Issue of Freedom” and “Ideal and Goal” demonstrate, besides the criteria of the view we obey, the meaning and value of democracy as a means and a goal, considering it as the social background to help the best one superior to the common run to emerge. “Freedom” is the means; and democracy is a goal for an ideal. They are entangled.

We pointed out the well-known problem of democracy: “Can there be the freedom of destroying freedom?” If the response “yes” is heard, then there is democracy within its actual meaning; that is, democracy can cancel democracy with the demand of the community. And despite the will of the community, if there are some power centers who prevent it, it is the proof it has never been democracy though it has been called so. All those cautions democracy developed to defend itself are ultimately the destruction of freedoms and superiority of certain people’s will despite the will of the community, besides the fact that there are some people who somehow have the power to determine others’ actions through some deceitful attitudes. Reasoning such as “we will assimilate them within the system” or “if we give them the chance they’ll destroy the regime,” just proves that both democracy and equality are nothing but palaver. On the other hand, when the response is “no,” then there is neither democracy, nor freedom.

“How come one asks for freedom to terminate others’ freedom?” Supposedly, there is a sort of freedom somewhere out there and someone who wants to destroy it. As a matter of fact, freedom is a word whose meaning changes from person to person and a crucial expression uttered when one wants to cancel another one. For instance, before the understanding of freedom of the Islamic regime, democracy cannot be accepted as it is freedom for destroying freedom. Here is the principle:
“Freedom and the process of acquiring knowledge are synonymous; and one is free as long as he can pursue his truth in the truth of the truth. Is there a demand for an order in which one will not destroy other’s freedom unless he destroys his own? The answer is in one word: Islam!”
It means, then, all the limitations and constraints an Islamic regime imposes in order to protect itself are actually a sort of “the secret of Allah’s mercy” for the opposing others as well, for it will help them to prevent destroying their own freedom!

“Freedom is something we cannot own unless we regard it as something others deserve!” This is what the proponents of democracy should understand. Besides, with respect to the understanding of freedom we mentioned: the essence and principle of “freedom that is regarded as something others deserve” is in Islam in an “absolute” sense.

Yet, it is also ridiculous to begin an explanation with “everybody will express their thoughts freely but…” and distinguish ideas from actions to be evaluated according to two different criteria. Tolstoy, in his work “The Kreutzer Sonata,” points out and notes the contradiction between these: while “uncensored” music, as an example for the cultural imperialism, which inspires the human various immoral things and sows seeds of evil into the human subconscious, is allowed, on the other hand, cautions are taken against and punishments are given to the ones who are affected by it and do evil and behave immorally. This demonstrates that democracy, in its classical meaning, has nothing to do with a notion of an Islamic regime.

“My freedom ends where your nose begins!” Here is another statement like an empty mold, to be filled with whatever each view may want and thus reach incongruent ideas and different regime demands. A lovely example for this is as following:
“Let people do whatever they want to do!”
This democracy is such a sweet(!) thing! Let people worship if they want to and let people drink and engage in prostitution if they want to! We can give more color to the situation by giving such an example:
“As a parallel action to your drinking and engaging into prostitution wherever you want, can I **** in the way they want?”
As a matter of taste; there must be freedom, so, in order to prevent it to be suspended due to some “health reasons” and the like, here is a proposal:
“In public spaces where everything is free ranging from mini skirts to necking and even notorious mating, as long as one does not leave any trash to the men responsible for collecting the garbage, anybody who would like to can (or may) **** on a piece of paper or into a nylon bag!”
Apart from the fact that it is against the nature of man, the “freedom” under consideration is not challengeable at all in terms of logic, taking into account the “freedom of a donkey (animal freedom)” which some people desire. And just as the real (faithful) Muslim would be against such an “animal freedom,” they are also strongly against this “freedom of prostitution” (which is far worse in his eyes) and all sorts of “animal freedoms” which cripple the mental health of people and destroys his life here and in the other world; they will never allow such things, whether as ideas or as actions, to be publicly announced or inspired on the social level.

Periodicals, newspapers and television channels with sexual, immoral, indecent contents are everywhere. There are also countless places for prostitution. And those with distinctive personality(!) and democratic jaws will say:
“It’s up to you, buy it or not. It’s up to you, watch it or not. It’s up to you, go there or not!”
This is in fact within the allowance, even encouragement, of Turkish Republic’s understanding of morality, hostile to Islam, and the extent of the prostitution which became the whole of the “general culture.” The statement above actually belongs to both parties with regard to the prostitution sector. Our statement, on the other hand, goes to the fools at higher positions:
“Now that you allow the ones who exploit the idleness (like an endless resource) of people, you should also legalize the sales of hashish and heroin and the like! It’s up to them, they’ll buy it or not.”

Question: Apart from the mistake while ignoring the ABSOLUTE owner of the power, is there anything more foolish than attaching no value to the individuals when they are separate entities but seeing them as the most valuable when they get together and form a mass?
Answer: Never! To express it clearly and honestly without any flattery or hypocrisy, people are usually so prone to idleness and confusion that (with the words of the Architect of the Great East) this “thousand-and-one-headed creature” cannot be expected of accomplishing on its own the task of guidance in the Right (haqq), sovereignty and Truth (haqiqat)!
As for us, we passionately believe in the sovereignty that makes people believe in, and chains to, the RIGHT (HAQQ) along with itself. We passionately believe in the humanity of slavery of the Truth (haqiqat); not in the one who sits at the seat of power just because they were toady to people.

The most terrible slavery is the struggle for Western type of “idle” freedom. This cult struggling for collecting stray votes, which is actually a sort of disease, demonstrates one of the exemplary symptoms of the rotten structure of a society. Freedom will become degenerated if it is made a goal, not a means, and it will reach the extent of an “animal freedom”. The purpose of freedom should be nothing but the Right (haqq) and the Truth (haqiqat).
In fact, there is no such thing as a word peculiar to everybody or an idea peculiar to everybody, or as a truth peculiar to everybody. The truth is one. And only one person finds it and makes it confirmed by one million. Thus, we will have order and harmony. And thus, votes necessarily join at one single point. If whatever found by this one single person is false or not true, then there comes another person and again makes it confirmed by one million. And thus all the votes are joined at the Right (haqq) once again.
A great and noble struggle among these “one persons” is carried out within a method, analysis and synthesis. All the radical changes and revolutions, with their rights and wrongs, consist of the jumps of these “one persons,” ahead of the sleeping masses in society and severe beatings of these “one persons” against all the obstacles through bringing forward their own personalities and embroider the architectural plan in their own souls into the society.
The greatest accomplishment emerges in everything null or Right (haqq) at the great personalities’ announcement of their ideas on condition that the nullity is followed by the Right (haqq). Yet, the authority of this exceptional “one person,” whose essence belongs to the Right (haqq), is not the reason for accepting the same in everyone. Whenever we accept this authority in everyone, everybody finds something in it; that everybody brings out an “incorrect” sample out of endless wrongs instead of the unique correct one; nobody will verify any of them and thus there appears what we call hustle and bustle and cacophony. “The lightning of truth originates from the clash of ideas!” This is a song of the slavery called freedom and what is one hundred per cent correct is the opposite:
“The clash of ideas only produces dust and smoke!”
Where there is order and harmony, there is no idle decision, choice or vote. A soldier in the army cannot be asked about what he thinks of the command of an attack; a patient in a hospital cannot be asked about the medication he plans for himself; a musician cannot be asked when he desires to sing or be quiet. Idle choices and such a tendency might just be in “women’s bathroom,” bohemian cafes, in the ballrooms of the snobbish ones and in the non-idea looms called “Bab-i Ali” (the place where most media companies are in Istanbul). The real freedom is to get rid of the slavery of self (Nafs) and be enslaved to the absolute Truth:
“Submit to the absolute Truth and have your freedom!”

By means of spies they found among us, Europeans inculcated freedom and democracy into us in order to destroy our religion and unity of our people. Since the Administrative Reforms (1839), every now and then, the same words have noisily been uttered without knowing the true meaning and paying the necessary price:
“Freedom, democracy!”
We, who possessed the truth of both freedom and democracy while we were strictly attached to an order throughout our history, and we, who established a world empire with this truth, were asked to be convinced to leave our essential order only to get into a disorder to get consumed by the provocation above. The first experience, which emerged during the reign of the Abdulhamid II, and was eliminated thanks to the great genius of politics and administration, was suppressed; otherwise the disaster of 1918 would have been in 1878. Constitutional monarchy and later the Republic brought the factionary tyrannies which made us disgust ourselves and destroyed our own root through singing the same song. Finally, at the end of the Second World War, the “compulsory” democracy exported by the Treaty of San Francisco and tolerated by Inonu (the Turkish president at the time) involuntarily but for the sake of “foreign aid” and the following: desperate Democratic Party government, aimless 1960, the shed-like 1972 and foolish 1980, and after all those military coups, the situation today. Due to the activities of the idiots who are unable to achieve anything but hostility against Islam and futile talks again and again around democracy, the sewage system has exploded and all the roads and squares, in short, everywhere has been covered by filth. And now, with the permission of Allah, the future belongs to the generation of Great East-Ibda.

The subtle point underlined above should have been understood so far: this is the freedom which was imposed by the Treaty of San Francisco. The United States of America, warns: “If there is no democracy, there will be no aid,” in American books which came out later, one can easily find the documents about the way the USA employed, such as military or economic aids, to make countries like ours slaves to lead them by their nose rings. And why would they behave differently? Why should one do a favor for someone else and give power if that favor would harm himself, just for the sake of doing you a favor? Shame on those who still find it unclear!

The best example for the critique of direct democracy is the point made in a meeting by a French Masonic Lodge, which admitted their contribution to the 1879 French Revolution, in the 1800s. The Masonic Lodge announced that the principles of “liberty, equality and brotherhood,” which appeared as the cause and effect of the 1789 revolution, are in fact the ones they imposed on them and added:
“The way we will follow it is to argue for administrating the nations with their lowest classes!”
Let us give an example from our country. Being toady to people, telling lies, addressing idleness and frivolities instead of their real needs, and snatching their votes whatever the price. As a matter of fact, ninety-nine point nine per cent of such men and women are dishonorable, under-qualified, or pimps or prostitutes, depending on what is needed!
For example, after calculating the votes that should be received from farmer groups; the result of which is buying their goods at a price more than their actual cost; or after calculating that there will come no votes, ignoring a particular segment of a society; or instead of placing the investments in the required ways and appropriate fields, targeting the focuses on particular people and places from which one can get votes; or with the concern of being elected, and leaving aside the cautions for stability, applying “general election economy” after every two and a half or three years (knowing that elections are done every four years); or employing not the one who deserves or is qualified but the one who supports his/her party; or starting the election campaigns with the help of biggest capital centers and paying for it through the resources of the state; or giving the chance to a prostitute, who drags men like a herd of cows from her behind, to take the highest position, and so on.

Fearing that a Muslim party would never leave power, that is, abolish democracy, after being the primary party in the election, some say:
“Democracy is impossible for Islamists!”
If an Islamist party is indeed Islamist, their demand for power must actually be targeted to bring an “Islamist regime”; that is, to terminate its opponents. The blasphemous one jumps and proclaims with the conviction that he is right:
“You should be prohibited!”
Then the question we shall ask is this:
“What is the difference between this prohibition of yours on us and our prohibition on you?”

Chapter IV

Now that the Orient, as a relative continent divided into units such as Islam, Brahmanism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and did not possess the unity of religion and knowledge of the Occident, and was deprived of technical essentials with which to reduce itself as a continent totally, it does not have a particular view on its own. With all its separate and distinct poles, the emotional unity and sameness of the Oriental man’s view of the Occident after the weakness of Islamic cadres in the Islamic world, is not because they agree on their view of self or because they know, understand and measure their own self and thus have an essential unity, but because of a shared sense of imprisonment and intimidation before a common enemy.
The ones who consider the Orient as a scattered continent and see that the East has no exclusive view on itself to frame its own structure will acknowledge that some views consist only of some local and subjective styles of thought and emotions between parts, not all-inclusive expressions. On the other hand, the ones who consider continental limits as narrow and overlook them from the true point of view as the most significant pole which inculcates its true color and identity, will acknowledge the fact that the Orient brings about a single and final standpoint both on itself and on the whole world.
The impact that will give its color and identity to an area, whether to submit to itself that area or anywhere it likes, is the cause that attempted to move and act there for the first time, is it not? Therefore, within this expression of mathematical truth, neither Brahmanism and Buddhism nor Zoroastrianism represents a call for action in the Orient. It is only Islam that brings its dominant color and identity through a universe-wide cause of all times and spaces, which is beyond and superior to continental limits.
A billion Brahmans, ten billion Buddhists, and one hundred billion Zoroastrians, in terms of the authority of the motion, action, cause and execution of their own inner domains on outer domains, actually and totally demonstrate a single man irrelevant to his appearance. However, a single and pure Muslim sees himself (owing to the same social execution and revolutionary obligation) as crowded as the whole population of the world. When we understand this, we can also find out the real pole that brought its true color and identity to the Orient, which is beyond and superior to the Oriental limits.
Then the Orient’s view (equal to its view on the world and universe and beyond and superior to local and factionary moods) about itself, originates from within the system of Islamic ideology. This view, with the complete spiritual and material criteria and a dominant and unrivalled self-confidence, introduces Four Great Caliphs from among the Arabs, then the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties and the others until the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent during the Ottomans.
The same view, after the Renaissance together with the weakness of Islamic cadres in the Islamic world, gets obsessed with an inferiority and incapability which is unable to test (materially and spiritually) his reality and superiority and also unable to comment on itself anymore beyond and superior to a superficial rote learning but only remains completely confused. The superficial revolutionists, those snobbish parrots and rope dancers of outer appearance who have emerged in the Orient just because of this miserable inferiority for a time, particularly over the last few centuries, reminds of their brainless successors representing the Orient’s view on itself which is a view more insulting than the Occident’s view on the Orient.

The Orient views the Occident in three ways: pre-Islamic views, within the power of Islamic period, and after the weakness of Islamic cadres. These three views overlap with the formation and emergence of the Occidental world.
At the time of the Orient’s first view, the only entities we can see in the Occident are Ancient Greece and Rome. Because the East was yet deprived of the Great Emergence which endowed it with its great color and movement, it was living both within the framework of the Right (haqq) through the agency of the prophets and within the framework of fallacy through the agency of dreams and legends, and as a common character, both were keeping the deep and mysterious climate of spirit and inner universe alive. This deep and mysterious climate of inner universe with its monotheists and pagans broke into thousands of opposing parts but it filled the whole world in parts with solely itself and did not witness any collective act from any direction and contrary to its own meaning. It was then, when the first wind of the Orient, through the Persians, blew upon the Occident. And it was after this very fight, through which the world sees a relative distinction between the Orient and the Occident, that the Occidental and Oriental people started to look at each other to find distinguishing marks. While the Occidental people called the Oriental people “barbarians,” on the other hand, the view of the Oriental people about the Occidental people, at the time, was nothing else but just a glance of misty pride which totally disregarded Ancient Greece's experience and turned back to the shell that it came out of.
And the Orient, as opposed to Rome, completed its decline, crushed under the oppression of this magnificent empire; found a tough master, the force of a skillful master within a Roman example who was able to run the “material” lever very well, and meanwhile, witnessed the dissolution of its own societies, and crept into its own skin on the individual level, and thus had an intimidated and frustrated view.
After Islam, the Islamic Orient surrounded, in its endlessly widest sense, humanity. And, purified from all sorts of small concerns of time and space, indifferent to narrowness of all locations and directions, the Orient brought a single and absolute view to the world; a proposal of the ultimate unit, superior in its quality. Before this view, the Occident, since it immersed into the darkness of the Middle Ages and was wiped out together with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, was unable to establish a real antithesis expect for a few material responses; and this situation continued until the Renaissance, seven or eight centuries later within this view:
“The way human beings view animals…”
After Islam, the view of the Islamic Orient, not only on the West but also on the North, South and the East, is strictly faithful to the criterion of “the Kufr (ungratefulness and disbelief in Allah and denial of the truth), wherever or however it emerges, is one single nation, and outside of Islam”, is thorough and consistent in its ideological knitting with all its maturely and tightly woven spiritual and material rules.
The saddest and the most slavish view of the Orient on the Occident is from after the Renaissance, which is the hectic period when the West was formed, tempered and established. This view framed and followed the reasons behind the weakness of the Islamic cadres. And, it is this view including primarily those Islamic cadres and also the contrary poles of the Orient such as Buddhists Brahmans, and Zoroastrians, which became the messenger of a harsh, crushing, cruel difference and picture between the two worlds, and which was extremely intricate and able to melt and mix the distinct units into each other:
“The indisputable western dominance over the material world, and the East’s obvious imprisonment in all this single and rough combination of the East, which, together with all its opposite units, is under the suppressing dominance of the West.”
And again, this Oriental view of the Occident, which has been prevalent over the last four to five centuries, starting from the time of the Ottoman Empire which was the most superior state representing the Orient and attacking the West, demonstrates the shared confusion and bankruptcy, through other states of Arabs, Persians, Indians, Chinese and Turkmens, and any through many other right or wrong examples, which had all their skins and material elements enslaved, and thoroughly confused their souls, and no longer allowed to give any account for self:
“It is this last view which was materialized in the Oriental structure like a eunuchoid’s organ over the last four to five centuries; and within the whole Eastern world, it aided, on the one hand, the herd of slaves and fools, who were indifferent to the world, and on the other hand, those superficial imitators and fake revolutionaries, who sought their consolation in suppressing their main personalities.”

Everything came from the East; everything, that is, our soul.
The East, when Man was as pure and bright as the rain water once upon a time, before square material geometry blinded hearts and brains, was the setting of our soul’s first and greatest achievements.
According to the divine expression, the human seed Adam landed somewhere in the East; the savior, the prophet Noah landed his ark somewhere in the East; and Prophet Abraham peace be upon him, the ancestor of the major prophets, turned the flames into a rose garden over the spiritual and material framework of the East; the master of wizards Moses searched for the Promised Land in the East; and Jesus Christ, who is more merciful than angels, gave his resurrecting breath from the East, towards the West; and the beloved one of Allah placed marble domes into the sand grains in all the corners of the East.
We are yet quite far away from the point to ask the believers to believe in all this and ask the unbelievers not to believe. We are at such a point of the cause that one should accept that the whole building of the soul (no matter how strong or weak it may be concerned) has been constructed solely on the foundations of the East, just like an atheist has to believe that there are at least some people who believe in Allah. Now that the earth and humanity are in fact one single entity, we should not get deceived by the geographical bigotry and separations like east or west, and we should accept the fact that the East is a place related to specific spiritual and mental conditions produced by specific effective factors. Let us immediately add that Man’s effort to explore beyond material elements and dream about “beyond” found its horizon of the garden of miracles full of color and light solely in the East.
Soul, miracle, fairy tale, spell, poem, along with the knowledge, spirit and nature of “beyond”, intricacies and puzzles originated solely in the East. Alas, the East, which gave life to the first and deep representative of Man and is the source of magnificence and grandeur, had a weakness equal in its magnificence and grandeur; and this weakness which was just like Achilles’ heel, caused it to become fatally vulnerable and finally knocked it down from end to end when the barb of the arrow stuck in that very heel. The killer arrow which is targeted at the East consists of “simple” Reason which coaches matter and the minor necessities which that Reason requires.

The dough of the East was kneaded by the Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arabian and Turkish communities in different meanings and as major representatives at different times in different places. The Japanese, as a subordinated nation in terms of civilization, did not contribute anything to the dough at first and then showed only the slyness of learning the West by rote within the framework of a multiplication table and lived in a strict prison of traditions with all their primitive idols and had no right to have a share in the final balance of the Eastern identity. Previously a second-class subject of China, finally a cheap technician of West, and the guardian of the same narrow and rigid spirit.
China represented the East in the oldest of all ages within the framework of a distinct spiritual subtlety and material embroidery. India made this spirit reach the darkest and most complicated inner labyrinths. Persia widened the depths at first and later and especially projected his personality into labor and matter at first and established an Eastern Empire against the West. Arabs, on the ground between past eternity and future eternity, became the setting of the systematization and centralization of the East before and after itself. The Turks, previously with their covered spirits like that of the steppes', made a statue out of the Eastern fluency and right to act which was like the furious and rough fluid beforehand and could not take the shape of any container, and found the distinguished chance to attach this very right to act to the real spirit of the East.
The five major shareholders, which met around golden framework of the Great Emergence, provided the East with its essential color and truth are Arabians, Persians, Turks as a whole, and India and China with its major parts.
The East found its final masterpiece, that is, Islam, which passed from hand to hand like a relay race starting from the Prophet Abraham, even from the father Adam and finally brought to its true owner. Thus, the East, in the very final step of the ladder of monotheism (smoothing all the other previous steps in the ladder without leaving any steps ahead to be smoothed) with other religions, connected to the West as an effect, yet to the East as a cause, determined and framed its past and future as a whole, and stood against the West and the world.
The final “becoming” of the East, in the name of the effort to conquer and capture beyond the material, which was once represented by totems, idols, deifications, poems, spells and potions in the primitive ages, has built the ultimate bridge between the surface and center of the globe and across the whole sky from the bottom to the top.
Within Islam, whose history started from the Father Adam, and step by step ascended to the eternal throne, the East aims at collecting the wonders of the age of depravity and the miracles of the era of Salvation in one single unit and at making the whole East the essence of the entire world. And finally, those only three great representatives who attained a certain level of effort to reduce the whole humanity to its submission are: Persians in the age when the time had not yet reached the pole of the Right (Haqq), Arabians after the era of Bliss and finally, Turks. After Arabs, Turks, with their effort to take the East (which has gradually lost its power) to the center of the West under the flag of Islam and with the pride of still being the most lively people of the East, have the quality of being the primary representative of the East.

Islam is tightly connected to the state, just as the soul is integrated, inseparably, with the body; it is inextricable, and an organ system can never be imagined without it.

Is it imaginable that Islam, which embraces the whole universe, excludes the state, which is the aggregate of material and spiritual values of the human community?

Now that "people" are the External (Zahir) of the absolute Truth (Haqq) and the absolute Truth (Haqq) is the Inward (Batin) of "people,” the unique principle of an Islamic state is the absolute Truth (Haqq), and the sovereignty uniquely belongs to it.

People in Islam are boundlessly, truthfully and excellently free as the slaves of (submitted to) the Right (haqq) and the Truth (haqiqat), and by the same token, boundlessly, truthfully and excellently dependent.

Therefore, Islam is the connecting bond of the most advanced form of statism, in the purest and most excellent sense, with the most improved freedom at the same time and in the same place.

The state in Islam, in the sense of distributing rights assessed by the absolute Truth (Haqq) for individuals, is the weakest of slaves and is also the most powerful of bosses, in the sense of collecting the rights of the absolute Truth (Haqq) from individuals.

In Islam, there is no form of government; but there is the spirit of government. Sublime and flawless Islam has no connection with systems such as dynasties, republics or other earthly form and cadre preferences, which are too simple and primitive.

It is certain that the major principle of Islam, from the point of view of the purest spirit of the administrative essence, is the access to the most organized order behind a great and central personality, who is selected, embraced and obeyed by the whole society and nation. That leader is like an imam with his congregation behind him, who together face the absolute Truth (Haqq). Thus the state, under the head of this personality, who is an “Islamic president" (Ululamr), will be the most superior and advanced one of all other forms of state and administration according to “time and place”, and of all forms of state, and will be most alienated from the dynasty form.

The head of the Islamic state is the most mature and most advanced Muslim personality. Behind him is the Master of the Universes, the Beloved of God; and behind the Beloved there is Allah, with His absolute Commands and Will.

Islamic revolution has the all-embracing goal of an organization and form of state as a whole, which has the value of an independent ideal. The name of this goal is “THE GRANDSUBLIME STATE” and its organization.

The Grandsublime State symbolizes a progress and innovation, incomparable with all samples ranging from Ancient Greece to those of today. It is the final and most superior breakthrough, which has collected the best of each and all forms of the state, be it the dominance of individual, social or exclusive class will, which have been experienced throughout history. It is a remarkable breakthrough that is tightly connected to the principle of Consultation (Shura) as well.

The aforementioned forms of state, which have been experienced throughout history, that is, the dominance of individual, social or exclusive class will, can be categorized in three major groups: absolutism, republic or single-party dictatorship. This Grandsublime ideal of ours is an embodiment of perfection, formed against all relative advantages and disadvantages of those forms of state, and is thus improved by refinement of their advantages, and leaving all their disadvantages as they are.

The state and organization ideal after the second half of the Twentieth century, perhaps for the whole of humanity, is bound to learn from and gain nourishment from our ideal of the “Grandsublime.” After experiencing the ailing liberalism, the fallacious communism, and the crippled fascism, the goal of the future, perhaps all around the world, shall be to adopt this branch of the Islamic Revolution.

The essential idea of this cause, which its side of organization is finely embroidered in the Ideological Knitting of the Great East, is simply submission of that community to the command and will of the most superior heroes of spirit and mind. To put this in other words, the goal is to establish the hegemony of noble minds from every field just like the scholarly dominance of doctors in a hospital.

Here is the smallest criterion of this enormous cause: in order to elevate the people to the true sovereignty which is beyond their own selves, there is no other way than enslaving them to the absolute Truth (Haqq), and submitting and binding the aimless crowds to the will of the devoted enlightened ones. This is an apparent servitude and submission that is in fact a complete and idealistic sovereignty. All forms other than this one only seem to give freedom to the peoples’ material and quantity-related interests and characteristics. However, in fact, they are nothing but illusional daily comforts that deprive people of their own true meaning and quality. And now, in the Twenty-first century, people have sadly experienced these illusions, become burned out in each one’s crisis, and have remained unable to reach their goals within the framework of those.

For all the world communities that began to break into pieces and split off because of the lack of ideal, we believe that this very cause promises “an absolute ideal beyond ideal itself,” as well as the ideal of social order to which they will submit.

Like the doctors’ submission to science and their unyielding attitude to any arbitrary decision, the real intellectuals, whose virtue and pride consist only of faithfulness to the Right (haqq) and truth (haqiqat), are institutionally named as the “Sublime Assembly.” Behind the raised platform of the assembly, one will read this sentence written on the wall: “Sovereignty belongs to the absolute Truth (Haqq)”; and the law is this Truth’s law and the state is this Truth’s state. And the embodiment of the ultimate and central position of the state is the Grandsublime, who is the only individual that represents the state in his personality as a symbol and focus, and dependent on the Truth in every aspect.

The form of state and government in the Islamic revolution, which we connect to the real and profound believer who is distinguished from his opposites and false copies with his concept of Sharia, Sufism and Reason and is subject to these, is a sheer matter of invention and origination (ibda) left to the liberated and advanced Reason. In this cause, this liberated and advanced Reason, while always being faithful to the main criterion, will follow the historic adventure of social organizations and administrative orders, and is one-hundred percent free to select or invent the most true, best and finest form.

Humanity knows three types of administration, which obtain all the authorities under the dominance of an individual or a society or a class: Sultanic dynasty, republic and class administrations centered around various social system plans or levels, namely monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy. Ancient history witnessed the first sample; new history the second sample; the newest history the third, or pure or mixed samples of all or two of them. In the most ancient history, we know that there were samples possible to consider within the first, second or the third.

In brief, until this day, humanity has not been able to find a form of regime, other than these three, that will represent a center of order to administer themselves within the framework of tribe and nation.

The reduction of humanity to one of these three units or sometimes the invention of possible mixture of these forms of state and administration within one another, demonstrates that the purpose is not in the forms but in the spirits that they are tied to, with everything consisting simply of the fundamental collection of the main idea system that is believed.

The form of the state and the government can never be the essential aim. It can only indicate the most appropriate and worthy form, like a substance reflecting the spirit or an expression of quantity reflecting quality. Only within this perspective might it own a number of elements which can be considered as in its framework or not.

The essential aim, whatever it is, can be served even by a sultanate rule that does not consider that the central influence and authority are simply free means of his own ego (Nafs) and arbitrariness; it can also be served by a republic; and likewise, it can be better and more effectively served by a class dominance that has a specific criterion and a certain idea of system.

Therefore, the state concept in the Islamic revolution, according to the profound and real believers’ consideration, has no relation to any form, yet it is an ever-searching and renewing, abstract and general criterion that will never compromise the spirit of Islam and its system of fundamental criteria.

When it comes to administering masses, like a doctor healing his patient without asking the patient whether he should treat him or not, the state concept in the Islamic revolution, according to the profound and real believers’ consideration, is realized through a guiding intervention and from the central position of the Right (haqq) and Truth (haqiqat), which is beyond individual, clique, or class-like characteristics. The focus of sublime manifestation and the uniquely ideal and unprecedented form is, as indicated at the beginning of the Ideological Knitting of the Great East, the “Sublime Assembly” and the “Grandsublime” ideal, which we consider as the most improved level of the republican form. This ideal is an innovative and progressive world-wide movement with its faithfulness to the stable and absolute fundamental criterion, which is as old as past eternity and as new as future eternity. Within the thousands of years’ old human experience, this ideal has collected the good from each form but rejected the bad as an invention of central wisdom and truth.

Think about the miserable, non-comprehensive minds that consider Islam without perceiving its eternal scope while judging soulless “Muslim” generations who have represented Islam as dead cliches and residual information. Let us all see how foolish it is for them to describe us as reactionary or sultan-supporters just after this completely new ideal!

The state concept in the Islamic revolution, according to the profound and real believers’ consideration, is a position of will and execution of a magnificent and totally new ideal; one which is absolutely subject to the greatest Prophet and requires exact submission from all others to the representation of the Right (haqq) and the Truth (haqiqat). Just as the state progresses in its position to be submitted to, its submission to the absolute Truth (Haqq) and the People also increases. It is also this state which submits administrative authority to the most sublime superiors of their own fields of that society.

Throughout history, every revolution has been based on a social class. The great French Revolution relied on the bourgeois class, the communist revolution on the workers’ class, and so on. Classes like soldiers, priests, and feudal estates had been the bases of certain regimes within certain times and spaces in history.

The history of revolutions considers the revolutions (and likewise the types of states and administrations) that were not supported by one or another social class; abstract and ambiguous like a spirit deprived of substance on which it will emerge. Classes, throughout history, have always been the lever of ideas and causes.

In fact, the social classes, like space that is the mirror for manifestation of time, are the grounds of embodiment for abstract causes. Without a class, it is unimaginable to subjugate the spirit and idea and turn them into a type of cadre.

On the other hand, the concept of class in the Islamic revolution is based on the masses, which are centered around the most superior human qualities; that is, embracing all of humanity, not on this or that organization of a clique acting on advantage and ambition of privilege and bossiness. Thus, the class in the Islamic revolution hopes for the cadre of exemplary personalities who will ferment the masses into humanity-wide extent; not for groups that will limit themselves with their own specific characteristics. This cadre has a specific class name: the true and superior class of intellectuals.

Thus the cause of class in the Islamic revolution, on the one hand, will go beyond the narrow and miserly framework of the concept of class; which will indicate an immense scope embracing all of humanity. In order for abstract ideas not to be rendered irrelevant or suspended, they should absolutely possess a cadre of “trustees” in the concrete flow of life. Although the concept of class, at first, suggests something harmful as its first feature, the concept of class in the Islamic revolution, on the other hand, will instead be enhanced by its second and beneficial feature.

Class in the Islamic revolution is a quality that is non-existent when it exists or existent when it does not exist. It is non-existent in its narrow and miserly sense and is existent in the sense that it forms the center of the main “Becoming” and represents the cause on concrete grounds to the extent that it covers all humanity. Within the necessity of manifestation of time in space, the class in the Islamic revolution, that we honor as the material support and that was made into a unrestricted clearness through considering the criteria preventing its narrowness and miserliness, is, namely, the noble class of true intellectuals; long-suffering nobles of ideas.

The right to a dominant class, which, before all of humanity, we regard boundless and all-embracing and that we rely on, is obtained through suffering minds and throes of comprehension. In other words, what we understand this kind of intellectual class to be is this: the ones whose minds have suffered and who have received pains of comprehension, like they were poisoned by the most dreadful one; not the ones within the implication of crowds of completely thickheaded, useless, reluctant and snobbish intellectuals who prostitute this noble concept.

Karl Marx says that in the capitalist order, the collected capital and obtained profit is actually accumulated by means of the violated rights of robbed workers whose “labor” was not paid for at all! This doctrine, a total failure in essence but completely true superficially, can be converted into the center of truth as the following: "The accumulated mistakes and faults of the meandering regimes resulted from the unsought “labor” and unrealized activities of ignored intellectuals."

Our criterion holds and will always hold superior the difference between an “Imam al-Ghazali” (a great Islamic scholar) and a poor shepherd; and it does never waver in the belief that the order under the dominance of these intellectuals will warrant the rights of this poor shepherd and even his poor goats more securely than themselves: for they are the ones who have gone beyond their own interests and who have annihilated themselves in the ultimate manifestation of the Right (haqq) and justice.

A regime that regards an Imam al-Ghazali and a poor shepherd equal in terms of quantity is as fallacious as the regime of pharaohs that dooms him to carry the stones to the pyramids. In other words, there will be neither individuals’ dynasties nor their arbitrary rulings. It is because of all this that the principle, “Sovereignty does not belong to people but to the absolute Truth (Haqq)!” will be held invaluable by the noble minds that annihilate themselves in the absolute Truth (Haqq). It is this cause, along with the struggle that organizes them, in which the delivery of prerogatives, in the name of the Right (haqq), and which are irrelevant to individual interests, will target the “classless class” that will support the Islamic revolution; that is, the “class” of people superior to all classes.

In the ideology of the "Great East”, instead of parliaments whose samples are known around the world, there is the “Sublime Assembly” working on behalf of society, and representing their will.

The "Sublime Assembly" is built by eminent “action” people of the nation who have works, discovery, insight, composition, and causes in; religion, thought, arts, science, politics, positive knowledge, commerce, military, administration, and labor: in short, in every field that organizes the searching moves and intellectual sufferings of human mind.

The “Sublime Assembly” means to purify the nation within the framework of a cadre comprising the most advanced thinkers and the greatest executors.

The “Sublime Assembly” means, just like a patient under the supervision of a doctor, keeping the nation under the sovereignty of the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat) by way of the dominance of the workers of soul and intellect, who have had pure and abstract intellectual suffering.

The “Sublime Assembly,” which can be described as the authority of real intellectuals in their nation, is nothing but submission to the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat), within the hands of superior beings who do not have selfishness or self-conceitedness, be it as an individual or as a particular body. The “Sublime Assembly” is the framework not of the ruling, but of the subjugated.

The only consideration that cannot be tolerated, even for a single moment by the "Sublime Assembly," is the vegetative freedom and aimlessness stemming from this sort of consolation: “People want it that way.” A despotism that has only quantitative expectations of vote and tendency, and thus, subjugates quality under the disguise of freedom, is completely adverse to the “Sublime Assembly.” The concept of freedom that is perceived by the “Sublime Assembly” is, let us repeat it once again and a thousand times more; submission to the truth (haqiqat).

The members of the “Sublime Assembly” can be at least 40 years of age or 65 years of age and biologically and spiritually and perfectly healthy. With all his private life, all of his activities, and the tests he has passed all the time against life and events, he keeps himself under the complete and absolute supervision and inspection of the nation and the “Sublime Assembly.” He completely and exactly realizes the most sincere and genuine representation of the pole of faith he is attached to, both in idea and morality. He leads a life with entrancement and love. He does not lead a petty individual-driven and ego-driven life. He remains beyond all professional political craft and all kinds of self-seeking and influence.

The set of personal characteristics of the members of the “Sublime Assembly” have been well defined in a most detailed and explanatory fashion. The “Sublime Assembly” has the eternally subtle criterion of attention and sensitivity that immediately excludes any member who diminishes his superior qualities or, let alone staying the same, does not always improve and enhance these superior qualities.

Just as in national assemblies, the center of whole will power and decision of the community is the “Sublime Assembly.” Each and every measure of the “Sublime Assembly” is a law, and each law is first attached to the main system as practical judgments to be applied on behalf of an ideological unit which does not have any inconsistency in itself, and then to the essential focus, that the main system also belongs to.

The “Sublime Assembly” is first comprised of a “House of Founders.” After that, all the members of the Assembly, unless there is a reason that demonstrates even the smallest inappropriateness seen or found concerning any member out of the certain reasons which cover the whole Assembly members, will remain members forever. A vigorous old age is not an obstacle.

After the foundation of the "Sublime Assembly," the other members elect one of the members of the Assembly as the “Grandsublime.”

The “Grandsublime,” elected by the Assembly, is the president of the state and the name of the state is the “Grandsublime State.”

The "Grandsublime" is elected for a term of five years.

The "Grand Sublime," announces and assigns new members, in case a member ceases to exist in the Assembly, due to the reasons such as death, serious illness or upon a wish or notice given to decline.

The "Sublime Assembly," assigns a moral degree and a rank, without being restricted by a specific number, to the eminent leading figures of the country: “Candidate to the Sublime Assembly.” The owner of this degree of the greatest value and reward continues to demonstrate worthiness to his degree, although he does not have any right to represent it. A smallest amount of unworthiness before this degree results in the termination of the right to the “Candidate to the Sublime Assembly.” The "Sublime Assembly" selects a new member from among these candidates.

The number of the "Sublime Assembly" members is exactly one-hundred and one, and each of these members is in the position of representing the whole country.

The “Sublime Assembly” members are the ones who were selected by the absolute Truth (Haqq), not people.

All the power balance, as its all-representative extent is attached to the same root-ideology, is between the "Grandsublime" and the “Sublime Assembly.” The "Sublime Assembly" finds in the "Grandsublime" the unification of execution and representation of its own spiritual personality selected by their own hands; and the “Grandsublime” finds his cadre in the “Sublime Assembly;” the members comprised, gathered and supervised under the superior virtues, before his unification of execution and representation.

In this respect, the "Sublime Assembly," on the contrary of the purposelessness of the quantitative fluctuation of the masses’ votes, follows the path in which it is always assigned to the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat), and always in the process of further maturation and self-construction. Meanwhile the “Grand Sublime,” selected by the Assembly and head of the Assembly and the state, accommodates, in the most harmonious way, the features of the will of the Right (haqq), with the meaning that the Right (haqq) and truth (haqiqat) are superior to the nation.

The “Sublime Assembly” is the conscience; the "Grandsublime" the will.

Thus, there are formed two main centers which inspect and are accountable to each other; as it is needed by the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat). The unity that results from the combination of ideas and works of these two centers keeps in its hand the ordered freedom which democracy could not and would not reach, and the free discipline which could not and would not be accomplished by all the other forms of state contrary to democracy. This is done without hurting either the right or the left wing.

The “Grandsublime,” along with the “Sublime Assembly,” will approve of each member who joins and each member who leaves. The “Grandsublime” will supervise and protect the individually distributed and bodily combined spirit of the Assembly against the Assembly itself on behalf of the nation and leave judgment to the “Sublime Assembly.”

On the other hand, the “Grandsublime,” within all his life, activities and tasks, is subject to the supervision of the "Sublime Assembly" and its task of truth protection.

It should be thus understood that the goal is simply this: before the balance of the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat), which is beyond everybody, to be able to attain and operate the ideal harmonious order, in which all the elements are always subject to and dominant to one another at the same time for the sake of the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat), and within which they all witness and inspect one another.

There are two aspects in one man or one man in two aspects; his self and again his self that supervises himself.

If the "Sublime Assembly" finds the “Grandsublime” in an unexpectedly negative and contradictory situation, it has the right to overthrow him with seventy-five percent (majority) of the votes of the Assembly, and the right to announce one of the other Assembly members as “Grandsublime” until the ultimate will is realized.

The "Grandsublime" does not have the right to directly repeal the "Sublime Assembly." However, if there is some sort of corruption in which the “Sublime Assembly" gathered around unexpectedly negative and contradictory inclinations that start to spread among the members, he can immediately submit the case to arbitration of the nation, in order to settle the dispute between him and the “Sublime Assembly.” In order to call for arbitration, a minimum forty percent of the “Sublime Assembly” members must be in agreement with him. In case the judgment of the nation is on behalf of the “Grandsublime,” it makes those members, who had agreed with the “Grandsublime,” valid. The rest of the members are immediately eliminated and then the Assembly will assign new members to vacant seats. If the judgment of the nation is against the “Grandsublime” then the decision overrules him and results in a new presidential election.

The Assembly is assigned with carrying out and realizing only the national will in extraordinary circumstances such as, when the national will needs to be realized; for example, the election of the “Grandsublime” every five years.

The government who is going to be accountable firstly to the “Grandsublime,” then by way of the “Grandsublime” to the “Sublime Assembly,” is selected by the “Grandsublime” from among the people outside of the “Sublime Assembly.”

The government is removed immediately from power with a vote of no confidence when this issue gets (1 more) vote from the “Sublime Assembly’s” voting on it.

From the “Grandsublime" to any member of the “Sublime Assembly” and to every member of the government, no one has the privilege to personal immunity or to act irresponsibly before the law. For example, if spitting onto the ground is unlawful, according to the law of good manners and decency legislated by the "Sublime Assembly,” law enforcement officers hold the offender equal, be it the “Grandsublime" or a "Sublime," or the head of the government, or a street cleaner.

The “Grandsublime” is not an ordinary head of state in its rough and general sense. He is instead a profound and intricate social symbol; a perfect sample.

The mature individual, to whom the entire jurisdiction is delivered within the highest human level, is to minimize “his self” to the smallest scale in terms of authority, for the sake of mature harmony which he is to combine with Allah, his conscience and his nation. The symbol monumentalized by the “Grandsublime” is this very representation and personification of this meaning.

The “Grandsublime" is the major and perfect sample, and who is the sum of all the parts of his nation. Therefore, his authority before the Right (haqq) and the truth (haqiqat) is equal to this total, whereas the freedom he has for himself is less than the smallest part of this total.

All the manners and activities of the “Grandsublime,” excluding his own words, will announce the fact that he is the most decent, most knowledgeable and clever person of his entire nation.

The “Grandsublime” can not and does not give an order contradictory to the corpus of rules built by the "Sublime Assembly" in each and every area with the fullness due. However, his each and every order is another law which is indicatory and complementary to law. In case there is a field which is not mentioned in the law, the order of the “Grandsublime” is definitive.

The government is replaced with one single command of the Grandsublime.

Be it the greatest or smallest unit, all of the governmental system works on behalf of him.

Administration of Justice works on behalf of him and justice is distributed on behalf of him.

The “Grandsublime,” along with all executive bodies and means, is the head of the army with all its branches. The Commander-in-Chief is directly the deputy of the “Grandsublime.”

It can thus be seen that the “Grandsublime” is the ideal individual who fills the great position of social will and executive authority, which is called “Grand Chief” (Ululamr) in Islam, in such a way that, being under an obligation to destroy and exclude his own ego (Nafs), he does not involve anything related to self-interest or ambition into it, even the smallest amount. The “Grandsublime" himself will become more submissive like a slave than anything and anybody before the sacred scales of divine justice and the meaning of the pole of the faith and truth he represents, which enslaves everything and every one in the most advanced freedom. The “Grandsublime" will first overwhelm himself under the boundless meaning he represents, and then, within the representative limits of the universe of meanings he is attached to, he will not avoid promoting his mortal being to the extreme and in the most glamorous and mighty and magnificent expressions, but without giving any credit to his mortal being. The glamorous expression of mightiness and magnificence of the “Grandsublime” belongs not to himself, but to the universe of meanings he and his entire nation are attached to, and to his nation, onto which it then is reflected.

Regardless of the subject related, the most troubled and anguished member of the society is legally authorized to question the “Grandsublime” at any moment to see whether or not he suffers equally or whether he has the solution to end his misery. This opportunity, which is available in every house belonging to citizens and might invite the worst punishment for the ones who offend, in case of an abuse even of the minor kind, is an emergency call which is forbidden to be used for pleasure.

The “Sublime Assembly” can reassign the "Grandsublime" who was elected for five years.

The “Grandsublime” who is not re-elected, unless he exceeds the age limit, will return to his seat in the “Sublime Assembly.”

The "Government of the Grandsublime State" is comprised of one Prime Minister and an adequate number of deputies.

The term "Deputy" is directly in relation to the “Grandsublime.” They are in fact his deputies.

The ministries, each with three undersecretariats attached to them, accomplish the most complicated and fullest volume of duty within their areas of responsibility and which are within the scope of a few ministries.

Each undersecretariat has at its command the various organizations of general directorates in accordance with the scope and nature of the duty it embraces. These general directorates have a scope equal to that of current ministerial organizations and especially significant due to the fact that they are arranged in a way that they prevent the superabundance of the ranks.

In the chain of command and staff management units of each ministry, a minister and three undersecretaries are employed. The three undersecretaries of each ministry demonstrate a complete unison; just as all the undersecretaries of the other ministries are equally harmonious within the governmental corpus. The undersecretaries are to be selected by their professional capability, as opposed to the ministers who are to be selected by political means, and both of them will be required to have equal compositional and harmonious spirit.

The general policies of the government are represented by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister; and as attached to the Council of Ministers as a whole and to their own ministries individually, the internal system of the government is represented by the Council of Undersecretaries headed by the Undersecretary of the Prime Minister. The Council of Undersecretaries always convenes with the command of Council of Ministers.

Authority of the Religious Affairs and the Commandership in case of military action and the Commandership-in-chief in peace have an autonomous position above the government, yet are after the executive and representative rights of the “Grandsublime” in those areas. When the Council of Ministers gather for a meeting headed by the “Grandsublime” or, if required, when they are invited to gather by the Prime Minister as the representative of the “Grandsublime,” these two position-holders take part with the right to introduce their opinions to be considered as the most important words and ideas.

Organizations like the Court of Appeals, State Council, and Court of Accounts have no active position or rights in the political domain of the state and the government, for they employ the authority obtained from the laws in the relevant topic and are autonomous in every sense before the Council of Ministers, and always after the “Grandsublime.”

The members of the Council of Ministers are assigned by the Prime Minister, who is to be selected from among the “Sublime Assembly” by the “Grandsublime,” on condition that the Prime Minister submits it to the approval of the “Grandsublime.” Autonomous state institutions (above the scope of the government) are always appointed by the “Grandsublime.”

All the governmental body, together with all the branches of government, is subject to any sort of supervision and inspection of the members of the “Sublime Assembly.”

The main criterion in terms of organization is as follows: The first and foremost essential quality is to carry out the state administration and leadership of the society by means of a “council (Shura),” built by the most capable and eminent individuals of the nation, and to regard this “council” as the truest representation of the nation. This should happen without voting; voting is acceptable only when it is applied under extraordinary circumstances, which is again almost impossible. The rest is simply quantity and material dimensional-related details. Quantity and outer mold can always be modified in accordance with the requirements. What cannot be changed is the spirit and the quality. The purpose is to keep the equivalent of this spirit and quality, with master architects sculpting the outer mold and organization.

The Ministry of Education will have three undersecretariats: “Science and Fine Arts,” “People’s Decency and its Houses,” and “General Education.”

The Ministry of War also will have three undersecretariats: those of “Land,” “Marine,” and “Air.”

The Ministry of Economy will consist of these three undersecretariats: “Industry,” “Trade,” and “Agriculture.”

The Ministry of Finance will have these three undersecretariats: “Budget and General Balance,” “Taxes and Stamps,” and “Banks and Monopolies.”

The Ministry of Health and Care will comprise the three undersecretariats of “Healing,” “Beautification,” and “Reproduction.”

The Ministry of Justice will consist of these three undersecretariats: “Courts,” “Reformatories,” and “Laws.”

The Ministry of Press and Propaganda will have the three undersecretariats of “Press,” “Propaganda,” and “Tourism.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will consist of these three undersecretariats: “Orient,” “Occident,” and “Intelligence.”

The Ministry of Domestic Affairs will comprise the three undersecretariats of “Civil Organization,” “Municipalities,” and “General Law Enforcement.”

The Ministry of Regulation will have the three undersecretariats of “Organizational Regulation,” “Regulation of Labor,” and “Insurance and Retirement Fund.”

And the Ministry of Public Works will consist of the three undersecretariats of “Establishments,” “Roads,” and “Transportation Vehicles.”

Our view of the “Great East,” as mentioned in the sections titled “The East in the Eastern Point of View,” “The West in the Eastern Point of View,” “The Superiorities of the East,” and “The East Nation by Nation” indicates that the “Great East” is in fact Islam. It is because of the inevitable “must” that should demonstrate the idea and action to be the future “World social order,” within the classical distinction between East and West as the determination of the direction and geographic location. The reason for thinking of an Islamic view just as one speaks of the “East” is that there is no view other than Islam in the East, which institutes an idea to grasp the core of things and events; and that it is inevitably the sole representative, accordingly. When it comes to the “representation of Islam,” there exists no other sample, in a systematic sense, than the concept of the “Great East-Ibda” as an understanding towards Islam. In that sense, there is also no sample of Islamic struggle, other than the wings of Ibda, that encompasses both idea and action as a whole.

Regarding the points indicated in relation to the “source of power,” let us look more closely at the reasons for why no other view than Islamic view can represent the East. There is no doubt that some certain views like Buddhism, which Western people attach much importance to today, have some sort of “mysterious-mystical” quality. However, we know why it is not an exact mysticism, since the exact meaning of mysticism is “to interpret something, an object or an event, with something other than rational rules, to seek a hidden meaning in them and to find a mystery of a hidden effective factor in their manifestation.” Originally, India-based and China-based thoughts that idealized being “excluded from time” and being wiped off, instead of grasping the core of things and events, were completely contradictory to the internal and external spirit of action, framed by the understanding summarized in the expression “earth is the field you plough for another life to come.” Islam imposes this perception as an obligation upon the human beings to be “above time”; in other words, exact mysticism is action, work, invention (Ibda). This is not something abstract or some type of up-in-the-air love; an action and spirit of love that desires to see its own applications and traces on things and events. As noted by a religious historian, and with good reason, the mysticisms mentioned above did not know how to devote oneself exactly and mysteriously. Let us add the following, perhaps with the same meaning as he underlined:
“It did not believe and trust the effect of human’s work and labor: only this sort of trust can be strong, and can move mountains. And an exact mysticism should have reached so far. This passionate and active mysticism could not be accomplished as long as the Indians saw themselves inferior to Nature; In India, human intervention of any kind was of no use. What can be done when famine doomed millions of unfortunate men to death? The main source of Indian pessimism is this incapability and impotency; however, the exact mysticism is motion and action.”
If the lack of action as mentioned above is evaluated through our topic, expressed as the “weakness of focusless induction,” and as a consequence, connected to the truth of the “Requirement of Absolute Idea,” the unique quality of the truth of our spirituality can then be understood. While Islam surrounds the individual deeply, in his eternal spiritual adventure, and the society widely in all spheres, focusless spirituality like Buddhism, which we see nested in the Western climates today, will eventually be proven null and void. One is action, pursuing “all” according to the “Absolute Idea,” whereas the other is isolated from everything for the sake of “nothingness”.
Considering the description of an ideology: “the corpus of ideas that is believed and adhered to by the individual and society; and provides all the essence on the construction of the individual and society;” here is our spirituality:
“Let us make it crystal clear that without falling into the traps of futile talks again and again on its causes and effects, we see spirit and spirituality as conjoined to all the quantitative and qualitative levels of existence of humankind, just as the atmosphere is conjoined to the earth. Without it, in our opinion, humankind and human life, both quantitatively and qualitatively, is non-existent at every level.”

When we have indicated that the truth of spirituality is in fact found in Islam, we also have replied to the contemptuous remarks (on the “source of power”) of the half-baked critics of Islam. We are going to emphasize this more; yet for now, the following will be firstly pointed out:
“Sovereignty belongs to the absolute Truth (Haqq)!”
The absolute Truth (Haqq), encompassing all the meanings such as accuracy, reality, justice, authority, appropriateness to the truth (haqiqat), the Qur’an and Islam, is Allah. In other words, all the meanings mentioned above have a value as a manifestation of Allah. Within this framework, the wisdom that should be taken from it is this:
“People” are the External (Zahir) of the absolute Truth (Haqq) and the absolute Truth (Haqq) is the Inward (Batin) of “ people.”
Allah is “Potent (Qaader)” and “Almighty (Qadeer).” The meaning of both is as follows:
“Allah does whatever He wishes, and likewise, He does not do whatever He does not wish. He is the One who originated and unprecedentedly created, in a unique way, all creatures other than Himself, and He is the One that does not need any other."
It should be noted that “Almighty” (Qadeer) is stronger in quality and strength, than “Potent” (Qaader). It indicates the fact that all existence belongs to “Divine Potency.” Muslim theologians (Mutakallims) and Owners of Wisdom are in agreement on the reason as to why Allah is called “Almighty” (Qadeer). Namely, according to the Muslim theologians, “Allah’s Almightiness” is simply the accuracy of “doing” and “leaving.” On the other hand, according to the Owners of Wisdom, it is simply the accuracy of the conditional clause for Allah: “He does whatever He wishes, and likewise, He does not do whatever He does not wish.”
Allah’s existence is inevitable; He is the Inevitable Existence. The unity of Allah is asserted with perfection and Allah is the “Unique-One.” Therefore, the truth is that there is no other true doer than Allah, and, in addition to verses such as “and He is Almighty (Qadeer) over everything,” the evidence of conscience proves it as well. Nothing can be out of reach of Allah’s knowledge and His almightiness; that is, nothing is out of reach for Him in terms of His knowledge and almightiness, be it existent creatures or non-existent ones. So He speaks:
“He is omniscient and omnipotent over everything.”
Within the framework of all these accounts, when we consider that all beings are within the scope of Allah’s will, and that a human being’s duty is to act properly according to the approval of Allah, and now that we are not aware of Allah’s discretion, then all the acts disapproved by Allah actually verify the wisdom called “reverse realization,” we can see that “power”, in every aspect, is within the scope of “Absolute Will and Almightiness.” This is the absolute description of the source of power. Sovereignty belongs to Allah!

“Parliament under the command of the Nation, Government under the command of the Parliament, Execution under the command of the Government;” this is the rational of a state and should be naturally so. The stairs thus climbing through the government are provided for serving the nation, with the executive power of the government that is also another center of execution. Being so, it is a structure whose raison d’etre and purpose is the nation. No matter what form it is, wisdom requires acceptance of the fact that the existence of the nation shapes all sorts of institutions, and that, to repeat, its raison d’etre is the nation. When this point is taken into account and even if the structure we pointed out is not realized for some reasons, such as geographical, demographic, technological etc, or is not built in the way we saw in history, nothing can change the fact that what makes “power” possible is the existence of the nation themselves. Therefore, when it is compared to a pseudo-republican administration which is unaware of all of this, a monarchy that appreciates the facts stated above, is more preferable. Apart from the fact that being under the command of the nation does not mean fulfilling people’s aimless inclinations and preferences, the scheme delivered by wisdom is nothing but a cliche form, unless it explains the questions such as “whom does sovereignty belong to?” and “what justifies their employing of power?” We will attempt to designate the content of this form from our point of view.

First of all, we will consider the matter of “freedom.” When it comes to “freedom,” quite ordinary, banal and trivial talks can be heard. Therefore, it has to be emphasized even more. To begin with:
“Man is sometimes aware of ‘necessity’ and sometimes his quality of ‘capability to make a choice’ in his life. Both of them are obvious truths and endowments seen in mankind.”
How should we live and how should we behave?
Mankind, as a conscious creation, will either behave with a sense of responsibility in accordance with the rules which “necessity” naturally impose on him, or will act freely, directly taking the possibility of action of his own into account.
Apart from the innumerous descriptions between these two points, there are the following fundamental matters to be understood:
Each of them lives based on whatever they take as truth. Therefore, the attitudes of both men demonstrate purposefulness. For example, if a man says, “To me, there is no truth or purpose to be arrived at or to be realized!” this is his truth, and his behaviour demonstrates a purpose that can be called “purpose for purposelessness.” This point is important in order to distinguish between the fault of seeing the purposeful behaviour appropriate to the truth only as a necessity and as contradiction to freedom, and the presupposition that the refusal of necessity and purposelessness result in a spontaneous freedom and lack of necessity.
Then, no matter how freedom is taken: either as a means or as a purpose, or is qualified in this or that way, it is a human truth conjoined to the purpose of the truth, which is the truth (haqiqat) itself. In it, it includes everything: freedom means a wish for the essence; attaching it to necessity is submission to truth; it is equal to going hand in hand with the process of knowledge; and it means following truth or is required to follow truth.
In many subjects ranging from considering human action as “existent” in terms of its quality of possibility before it is actually realized, to the behaviors according to the rules of obligations, truth (haqiqat) is mankind’s being surrounded by the “Surrounder.” Besides all the separate and contradictory descriptions within this framework, mankind’s being surrounded by the “Surrounder” is obvious! Apart from the distinctions and contradictions of them, their common property is that they represent different sorts of fatalisms with their concept of reality, which dominates mankind “at present”. On the other hand, when there is a “Surrounder,” there will of course be the “Surrounded” too! In other words, mankind is the “Surrounded.” It is obvious, as well. This view that emphasizes and gives precedence to the human existence and actions, of course, regards itself as the determining one that selects and stresses the truth of the volitional behaviour. The same diagnosis is valid here, as well: there are countless different and contradictory explanations of all kinds and new ones. What needs to be noted is that it is impossible to reject neither the freedom of volitional selection on behalf of the “Surrounder” nor the truth of the “Surrounder” itself, which is of course an obligation.
As a consequence:
The rejection of one or the other of these opposite truths we have mentioned, or making one of them the central one and attaching the other to it, or producing an intermingled synthesis, or fixing it as “deadlock”, is ultimately the subject of innumerous expressions, be it rejection, be it attaching, be it producing, or be it fixing as “deadlock”. Because existence, as a truth experienced individually, is as various as the number of people that exist.
And here is the most important point to understand. The truth of life lies within the spiritual life. Now that the uninterrupted flow is in the spiritual life, the truth of existence cannot be rendered in expressions. Its truth is past as soon as it is expressed; therefore, it is a matter of “pleasure of intuition.” Spiritual life, on the other hand, is within the individual life; therefore every one has his own truth. At this point, the following question is naturally raised:
“Then, who has the truth of the truth?”
In other words, the truth of the truth is revealed in the truth of one single individual; the truth of obligation and ability of making a choice, of fate and volitional act, of purpose and means, of cause and effect, of human essence, of “how” and “why”, of “how” and “why” of the process of acquiring knowledge, of the “Surrounding” environment and its relation to being “Surrounded,” and of the criterion of being the same and different; yes, whoever reveals the truth of the “Above-Time” that surrounds Time from the very beginning to the end, and the truth of the total truth of existence and becoming, he is the “Individual Truth (Haqiqat-e Fardiyyah),” and also manifests the absolute truth of freedom.
Here is the consequence which emerges after all of these short explanations:
The “Requirement of Absolute Idea” demonstrates the system of criteria so that everyone finds his own truth and follows his own freedom, obtains the value and accordance of his thought and action, and sees the relations. It is obvious that such essential “Absolute Idea” cannot be structured by human consciousness, which is continuously changing.

Unless the provision of “Absolute Idea” is completely understood, making each and every person perform his work as if it is a sublime “duty,” and thus answers the “whys” of everything; why he eats, drinks, sleeps, works, learns, thinks and breathes, any other path far from this truth and meaning that is to be followed will turn into and lead people to Hell. It should be understood that the commands, provisions, and laws needing to be obeyed should not only be the dominating one over Human but it should also be the “required” one, which cannot be determined and bound by desiring it or not. It should be noted that the “law of nature” or “law of physics,” which cannot describe themselves on their own and people do not see that they are all related to the “Absolute Truth,” are “necessary” laws that do not impose any “duty-responsibility.” When it is taken into account that human behaviors, different from animal instincts, are within the quality of consciousness, that is, his ability to make choices, and demonstrates “moral quality,” then the answers to the questions like “According to whom? According to what?” will indicate the “moral rules” that should be obeyed. The meaning of the phrase “should be obeyed” encompasses the situations in which they are not obeyed. This poses an issue. If, in the universe including humankind, all-encompassing laws have a dominating power over man, then the acts of man are not free, which is contradictory to his being a creature which has consciousness and the ability to make choices. On the other hand, if, in the universe including humankind, the COMPULSORY cause and effect relation is not accepted between the acts, behaviors and events, then there cannot be a cause or effect itself when there is no “causal” relationship; all of which means “there is no being!" Well, so? Now that each and every movement, becoming, and behavior is “connected” to a cause, and that each cause demonstrates an effect, then the very “first cause” to be discovered in the original point is the “free cause” which was not rendered “compulsory” by another cause, and is Allah, who himself created the concept of cause. Free cause reveals itself on the level of “Allah’s slaves,” as the peak point of being for others while he himself is not anyone else; in the Beloved of Allah in whom all creatures consume themselves. So, we have totally explained the issues, which could not be explained as a consistent whole apart from some half-truths, of compulsion-freedom, and of what the “laws” dominating and encompassing all beings in the universe are, and of where laws, which are necessary but cannot be made invalid upon one’s wish, are connected: to what Allah and His Prophet taught, demonstrated and decreed. It does not depend on whether one wants to or not, because he is the criterion of all sorts of negativities when the acts are “carried out contradictorily,” since they are capable of happening on their own, and everything can stand owing to its opposite. While unbelievers deny Allah, at the same time and on the other hand, they become subject to Him and realize the truth from the opposite side. “Allah will complete (the revelation of) His divine light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).” As a consequence, what we have to say is:
“As the settlement of the issues of human being and society, what a beautiful command or decree and law it is; so beautiful that it gleams with the awareness of being faithful to Allah and His Prophet!”

After thus settling the topic of freedom, we can make a summary in one single concise sentence:
“Freedom is freedom after submission to the Truth (haqiqat)!”
This is the cause and the goal and the target and the essence of the freedom!

The human being in Islam is a creature Allah made for Himself; Allah’s substitute on earth, a caliph, so that they can grasp “things and events;” and altogether humanity, willingly or unwillingly, is the slave of Allah and the cadre of His Beloved Prophet. The one who accepts the offer is a Muslim and the one that does not is an unbeliever (Kafir). The Prophet says:
“Disbelief (Kufr) is one single nation!”
Against the Ummah of Islam, the nation of Islam, there is the nation of unbelievers. The ones that obey the commands of Allah and His Prophet, that is, Muslims, are the caliphs of Allah. Yet, the breed of unbelievers is in the position where they deserve the decrees Allah and His Prophet assessed for them. This demonstrates that it is the Muslims who represent the sovereignty of the Supreme Ruler (Haakim) Allah. Muslims are the sovereign caliphs that represent the sovereignty of Allah and unbelievers are the ones who are subject to the sovereignty of Allah, and of course, to the sovereignty of Muslims. We can thus summarize the themes to be pointed out in this topic:
a – In an Islamic form of state, the source and employment of the “sovereignty” is not something “up in the air” and “abstract,” as it is misinterpreted by unbelievers. Therefore, the doctrine “Sovereignty belongs to the absolute Truth (Haqq),” clearly frames both the source of the sovereignty and its employment by the Muslim Community (Ummah) who behaves in accordance with Allah’s and His Prophet’s consent; and its manifestation as power.
b – The employment of the sovereignty by the Muslim community (Ummah) has nothing to do with what is called “sovereignty of people” or “sovereignty of nation” by unbelievers. The source or sovereignty is not the “community” but the corpus of commands delivered by Allah and His Prophet. Therefore, whatever the form of state in Islam, the nature of the difference between the administrator and the administered has no equivalent in traditional Western classifications. That is, just as the Sultans we saw in monarchies throughout history cannot be placed in the same category as the Kings outside the Islamic framework, and likewise, the manifestation of the sovereignty and power within the framework of the “Grandsublime State”, which is the closest one to the ideal level within the data that contemporary possibilities present, cannot be expressed within the description of the classical republic and democracy. Whether his name is Sultan or the “Grandsublime,” the human being representing the spiritual personality of the nation, is the “Caliph of Allah,” and thus the “shadow of Allah reflected on earth.”
c – Dialectics means attitude, dialect, and style of an idea, disguised in the forms of expressions and the elements of intuitional suggestions. Each ideology has a peculiar dialectics of its own. If we use an analogy of a rifle bullet for issues to deal with, idea is gunpowder and dialectics is the shooting nucleus. The dignity of a cause becomes perceptible in its dialectics. The “essence” is always stable and fixed in a cause, yet dialectics is in motion and relocated in accordance with time and space. The glorious and magnificent dialectics of Islam, which is the ideal of all, and the unique sample on earth, is the “concept addressed to Islam,” that is, understanding towards Islam, which we belong to. If we are to underline this point, which we have mentioned in relation to an understanding and the corpus of system within the general framework so far, as narrowed into the topic of form of state and administration (which is and should be mentioned in this corpus), it is as follows:
“The ESSENCE of a cause is always stable and fixed, whereas dialectics is shifted and relocated in relation to time and space.”
This point should be kept in mind against some circles of “clowns” who, in order to be toadies to the breed of unbelievers, attacked the historical Muslim dynasties, apparently in the name of Islam, such as the Umayyads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Seljuqs and Ottomans. The issue of what the ideal form should be is related to the social structure of each historical period, geographical conditions, demographic situation, economic situation, means of communication, forms and quality of social groups, distinction and trends of classes, and conditions of esteem in which people feel themselves (for example, the difference between attaching higher value to morality and to money and name and fame). Apart from the fact that Monarchy might be a practical solution, how can it be possible to deny the truth of “hereditary” factor, which does not have significance on its own in Islam and demonstrates a broad range of issues ranging from some diseases to “criminology” and other related topics invited by the subject itself, and from the human organism to certain talents related to spiritual advantages? The evaluation of being right or wrong is one thing; to rightfully employ power or not is another thing. It is one thing to naturally and eventually grasp the flag as the strongest; to necessarily consider the circumstances in which power prevails as the most significant determinant is another thing. If it is so sweet and democratic to obtain and determine the political power through the economic power of a wealthy father, why should it be bad to inherit the power position? It should be noted that we are not advocating monarchy. However, we cannot tolerate some fools, along with their so called Muslim toadies, who defame the history of Islam at one sweep by using the prejudice of “sweet democracy, bad monarchy” as a shortcut. In more than seventy years of the Republic, which president, prime minister or political party leader can be considered an equal to Osman I (Ghazi), Orhan I (Ghazi), Murad I (Hudavendigar), Mehmed II (the Conqueror), Selim I (the Brave), Abdulhamid II (the Divine Khan) or the monument of suffering and being oppressed, Mehmed VI (Vahideddin)? Look at their armies, economic situation, scientific studies, prosperity and viziers. This is what can be seen and evaluated in it: Purpose is Islam, and, throughout history, whatever the form of state was, what is to be answered is who accomplished this truth, and who did not.
d – Apparently, in some systems, power rises like a so-called pyramid from bottom to top, but imposing aggression, injustice, all sorts of theft for its interests, banality and inequality at the top of the power ladder and under the slogan “Sovereignty belongs to the nation,” while justice, peace and quietness seem to prevail in some monarchies. The reason for this example is: whatever the form of state and administration is, the source of power, and the doctrine “Sovereignty belongs to the absolute Truth! (Haqq),” and what makes the employment of power legitimate, do never change. Therefore, in this sense, compared to Islam, connecting the sovereignty to the decrees of Allah and His Prophet, whether its name is democracy or monarchy, all other forms of state and administration are fallacious in terms of the source of power and the point legitimizing the employment of power. One of the consequences to be drawn is as follows: Do not let some people, who are toadies and “prostitutes” and seemingly to suggest ideas on Islam, try to deceive people with the so-called motto, “living together in peace,” for the sake of appearance on TV channels and seizing a bit of space in the secular media, just like the dishonorable who chose the way to do their best to seem witty and friendly to be invited to the banquet in a wedding ceremony. It is possible to live together with unbelievers only through allocating a place for them under the umbrella of Islam, not accepting any secular-democratic umbrella and living with them under it. As a matter of fact, it would otherwise be the domination of the unbeliever and the imprisonment of Muslims.
e – “In Islam, there is the spirit of, not the actual form of, administration.” An additional point is this: There is no model, other than our “Grandsublime State,” which is thoroughly framed to the slightest detail as a corpus of Ideology. A further additional point is: In Islam, in all areas including the state administration, “the work is given to the capable ones,” as the criterion of merit. Another additional point is: Parliament is under the command of the nation, government is under the command of the parliament, and execution is under the command of the government. When all these intertwined points are taken into consideration, the “Sublime Assembly” in our model of state, which is to be established by the will of the nation, has nothing to do with the ones established according to well-known electoral systems and characterized by deceiving and fawning people, or misleading and abusing people’s aimless and selfish tendencies. Distinguished individuals in all areas of work and action, who in fact became prominent just for these characteristics, represent the will of people who accept those fields of work and action they are involved in, as a way of life. Compare this sort of manifestation of national will, as one who believes that the earth is a field to plough before one goes to the other world, and while seeking to obtain Allah’s consent, with the situation of the current assembly representing an unqualified breed of man and the junkyard of the nation!

If we want the topic of criteria related to competence and consultation in Islam to be framed in a dynamic way, we should note the words of Allah’s Beloved:
“Gabriel came to me and said: Allah commands you to hold a consultation with Abu Bakr.”
And again the word of Allah’s Beloved One:
“In a tribe that has Abu Bakr in it, to assign anyone else other than him as a chief (imam) is never worthy.”

A consultation is held with a competent one. Competence is significant not only during the selection process but also in a matter of assignment.

While the Prophet of Allah was being laid to eternal rest, the people of the example (of Prophet) and the community (Ahl as-Sunnah) drew a conclusion from the participants’ attitudes at the Saqifah meeting, that the matter of selecting a caliph was required (Wajib); even the most essential thing to be prioritized.
The people asked Said ibn Zayd:
“Have you witnessed the death of Allah’s Prophet?”
“When did they do homage to Abu Bakr?”
“On the day Allah’s Prophet passed away. Muslims hated the idea of being regarded as an unguided and loose congregation, even for a few days!”
“Was there anyone who was against him?”
“No; only the “seceders” (Murtads); and some of the Companions (Sahaba) from Madina (Ansar), who were about to be seceders if Allah had not saved them.”
“How about the Immigrants (Muhajirs) from Mecca, did they avoid commitment?”
“No! Before the Immigrants were called, they themselves came one after another and declared faith.”
After considering the events of the Saqifah meeting, they reached the following results: On the one hand, there are the ones who are capable of being the Leader (Imam) and can meet the requirements for it, and on the other hand, there are the ones who meet the requirements to select the Leader. And there are those who are excluded from these two groups.

Let us show the difference, as a conclusion drawn from the scene above, between the ones who see power as a position to take all the best for themselves, and those who see it as a position of great duty and responsibility:
“Al-Mawardi, on this issue, says: The selection of the Caliph is a ‘fard al-kifaya’ (that is, the duty which was undertaken by someone or some people only to save others from the responsibility of it). In other words, when the one who has the capability of being the Caliph starts performing his duty, the compulsory condition for others is aborted. If no one undertakes the responsibility, the community is divided into two: the ones that have the competence to select and the ones that can meet the requirements of being the Imam. If there is a delay in the selection of the Imam, none other than these two groups in the community can be blamed for committing a sin or an unlawful act.”
Besides the issue above, now think about this: What about those men who slander those who perform the compulsory Jihad duty? These slanderers are totally incapable with their heart, culture, mind or strength to do the same, and should have in fact felt gratitude for the ones who perform their own duty since they undertake it. “Did we say men?” “No, they are not even ‘men,’ but much less than men: they are instead a type of feminine boys!”

The criteria “to entrust the work to the most capable one” and “not to deliver the ‘trust’ to the one who deserves it, is a forewarning of doomsday (Day of Judgment),” are already known. Let us reinforce this warning with an anecdote from the Great Imam from the Hanbali School, and put forward the criterion for evaluation. They asked Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal:
“Which one of these two men should be the Commander in war? One that is brave and strong, but a sinner; or the other, who is a mature believer but weak and incapable. Which one makes a better commander and with which one should we fight together with?”
Here is the reply from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal:
“The strength of the former is to the advantage of Muslims and his sins are to his own disadvantage. The faith of the latter is to the advantage of him but his incapability and weakness are to the disadvantage of Muslims. In my opinion, the one who is Muslim yet sinful and strong should be assigned as the Commander in war; you can accompany him in a campaign.”
Now that every benefit is a science, the science of “social benefits,” besides, the balance of “individual” and “society,” “individual truth” and “social truth,” are all found in the example above. It also demonstrates the ability to make a fine distinction between the relation of “work to work” and the faith of “man to man.” The art of distinguishing the “honest” from the “impostor,” and using the criteria in the most appropriate fashion, along with many more multicolored and brilliant aspects of “the truth of community,” can also be found in the example above.

Both in the Hadith (collection of writings that document the sayings and actions of the Prophet peace be upon him) and in the Qur’an, Muslims are not required to obey a particular form of administration: it is a matter of leadership, capability, council, justice, and a governing body which embraces all of the worldly affairs. The “essence” will be kept the same, whereas the form can be changed in accordance with the circumstances of that time and to the advantage of society. In brief, in Islam, “what matters is the spirit of administration, not the form of it.” Taking into consideration the fools and traitors who would try to interpret the phrases in the way they wish: The phrase “not the form of [administration]” does not mean that there is no administration or no state in Islam. It implies the following meaning: No specific form of administration has been particularly determined with its own criteria within Islam.

Abu Bakr used to be called the “Caliph of Allah’s Prophet” by Muslims. This can be interpreted using the following points: In accordance with the circumstances of that time, this is because Allah’s Prophet (pbuh) loved him and implied him, most importantly and directly because Allah’s Prophet was the most loved, and because it was Abu Bakr who reminded Muslims of Allah’s Prophet. Umar succeeded Abu Bakr as the Caliph, and the Companions (Sahaba) called Omer, “Allah’s Prophet’s Caliph’s Caliph.” Allah’s Prophet decreed “Obey Abu Bakr and Umar after me;” and it is well known that Abu Bakr assigned Umar as the Caliph when he was on his deathbed. As we indicated above, it is obvious why he was called “Allah’s Prophet’s Caliph’s Caliph” by the ones who selected him. Umar decreed, “This title is too long, call me instead the ‘Commander of Believers’ (Amir al-Muminin).” The two titles for the great position of social will and executive power, Commander of Believers or the one vested with Authority (Ululamr), as the great position of social will and execution, are the same thing. This shows that what matters is not the cliches but the meaning. In the “Grandsublime State,” the title that bears those meanings is the “Grandsublime.” Then, using the word “Caliphate” is not an Islamic requirement or one of the requirements of the form of Islamic government.

It must be clarified that in an Islamic state, naturally the head of the state is also the Caliph. The reason why the institution of Caliphate is thought to be a distinct structure is that the states of Muslims appear as separate states here and there, and the necessity to indicate whose “head” among those states of Muslims is the all-encompassing one. The separation resulting from geography, representative competence, and claims for possession of power, led to contention over the Caliphate and it caused the dichotomy of state with the Caliphate here and that without the Caliphate there. In other words, the essential point is that all the Muslim communities in the world would be united around one state and leadership. Apart from some accidental reasons such as geographical distance and weakness, there can be no such thing as separate Islamic states. As in the phrase, “Only nobles can understand the nobles’ jargon,” this is a fine point that can only be understood by noble souls whose only wish is Islam: Just like the war between Selim the Brave (Selim I) and Mamluk Sultan Tumanbay, and their contention over the Caliphate is not a struggle for a sultanate itself or ordinary selfish interests but for Allah’s consent, that is, for the unity and reinforcement of the Islamic community (Ummah), with the sincere prayers for leaving the flag to the one who most deserved it. What we would like to say is this: Regarding the Caliphate, every person or individual should be evaluated, without any invented overgeneralizations, according to his good intentions, ill intentions, and obligations stemming from the circumstances, and thus personal conditions peculiar to and surrounding him. Here is another point: Because we indicate “a single Islamic State,” some fools, while there is not even one truly Islamic State right now, may come up with a so-called idea that we should first found an Islamic Union, just to divert the conditions in which we struggle. Founding an Islamic Union comes after founding the Islamic State; otherwise the function of an Islamic Union under the circumstances will be no more than the weak organizations such as the fake Organization of the Islamic Conference. This is the consequence of all: This point which will provide the Islamic unity in the world, under the circumstances we all experience, warns and reminds us of the necessity and responsibility of founding the Islamic State as soon as possible and going at it “hammer and tongs.”

The “Grandsublime State” is the form and name of our state. First of all this fine detail: When we look at the states founded by Muslims in history, we see that they did not have a name highlighting the tribe just because of the Muslim understanding of “Ummah” (Muslim community). Umayyads, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Seljuqs, Ottomans, so on and so forth. As it can be seen in these examples, they are all called with the name of the one vested with Authority (Ululamr), the one who represents the social will and executive power, instead of the name of the tribe; therefore, the name of the states is not the name of the authority of a specific or mortal person who has the power but the name of the position of social will and executive power, along with the main function of any name by which someone or something is recognized. And within the periods of a dynasty as the rings of a genealogical chain, passing from one to another, the state is administered with the same attribution which is a total symbol of the whole course. Considering the fact that the model of our state drawn by the Ideology of the “Great East” has no aspect peculiar to a monarchy, that is, a sultanate, the name of the position of great social will and executive power; the abstract name of the position to be filled by the most deserving person is the “Grandsublime.” The “Grandsublime” does not only imply a name but also plays the role of an adjective; it will be explanatory enough when we say that the state is a legal entity and an adjective implies “the states, characteristics, qualities, indications and signs of a person or thing.” The “Grandsublime” is, first of all, a name which is far from the light attitude as describing a state with the adjectives such as “excellent, lovely, or beautiful.” It is a significant distinction, because a description like “State of Islam” might imply a limited meaning as if the state were Islam per se. It may leave an impression as if every kind of emerging negativity could be connected to Islam per se. However, as we have indicated before, the essence remains the same, whereas the forms may change in accordance with the needs of the time. Indeed, let alone the founded states that exist(ed), the light attitude taken in most of the books on “State of Islam” is regarded as if it could be connected to Islam itself, instead of the person who wrote it. Imagine the murders of a man who directly humiliates Islam, while mumbling Islamic cliches in order to screen his own foolishness, and thus using Islamic motifs as a shield. Even though it could be called an “Islamic State” instead of a “State of Islam,” and in this way it could be more appropriate to use the adjective “Islamic” with an adjective suffix (-ic) added to the name “Islam” and thus to imply the quality of the “state,” it would be a light attitude again due to the fact that it is named by using an adjective as we mentioned above. Just as it will not change its quality if you call a lumberyard a drugstore, and likewise, calling a hag “beautiful” will not avail her. And a second point in relation to the ones mentioned above: The name of our state, the “Grandsublime State” is both correct and beautiful since the “administrative forms” of states are accepted as their own names. Islam is not a form of administration; and the “Grandsublime” is a form of administration in accordance with Islam.

Here are some points to be taken from the topic “Republican and Personal Administrations” on the characteristics of the “Grandsublime State,” in the words of my master, Necip Fazil:
I am a man of literature, who endlessly suffered and engaged in the roots of Western and Eastern knowledge, and hereby declare; “Let the others come and see what knowledge is, in the wisdom of the great Islamic sufis.” Accordingly, I would like to mention the famous sufi Abu Bakr Shibli’s words for another sufi Mansur al-Hallaj:
“While we discuss the divine secrets in cellars and such isolated places, he exposed himself publicly and revealed the secrets!” says Shibli, who demonstrates, with these words, his expertness at all the manners and subtle details of the inner universe and beyond. He was also a master of worldly affairs and people’s administration to the finest detail. Now, let us see what magnificent criteria he points out about the forms of republican and personal administrations:
“The main distinction between a republican administration and a personal administration is the influence the people have on the state administration. The greater the people’s right to supervise the government, the stronger the republican spirit within the administration. When the statesmen lose their personal power and become only members of the executive council, then the supervision of people reaches its highest level. In absolute administrations, no matter what or how it is named, all of the power concentrates on an individual or a few members, and this results in the following: there would be no abstract (pure) worthiness or capability. People would have to cluster around a few people instead of around certain causes. When these few people are gone, everything is gone. When people are aborted from the position of supervision, they become a herd of slaves. Opponent classes and groups cannot protect their rights, as they do not find themselves sharing the state administration. The ones who administrate would not recognize their rights. Therefore, people would deal with the matters on their own, and try to save their own interests. However, in the real republican administrations, which rely on the people, the consequences would be the opposite.”
We do not know any other example in the Western world of knowledge, other than this sufi, which is full of so many works on democracy that they could fill the vast Haymana prairies of Anatolia.

Our “Grandsublime State” model, which redirects the Western domination and offers Islam to the “New World Order,” exists in the system of Great East-Ibda as a thorough unit to the finest detail; one with every element in the appropriate place. After this nucleus fixes its roots in its own soil, with its roots emerging all over the world and its branches spreading out across the sky, it will offer itself as the “New World Order.” Our “Constitution”, which is shown as a complete framework and appropriate to all types of local characteristics belonging to various geographical regions and ethnic communities, demands to be put into practice like the rings of a chain linked to one another, encompassing all the secondary or tertiary differences (to be handled as an affair of internal organization) which are only details that cannot damage the “essence!”

The issue that should be gradually adopted by the Islamic world and by which, then, the Islamic world should gain others’ support for and struggle for, is the negation of the United Nations organization. Additionally, the goal of ours should be to object strongly to accession to the European Union, and in order not to make it demonstrate a weak attitude of objection as a mere “I won’t!” to the command “You are going to be!”, the only thesis that can be employed is our model of the “Grandsublime State.” That is, embracing the authority of the “Great East-Ibda” concept and making it dominant.

Chapter V

Editor’s Note: The last chapter titled “From the Book of the Prophet”, which includes relevant decrees (Hadiths) of our Prophet, has been excluded due to the worries over the loyalty to the original.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 09:16 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 04:32 PM
  4. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 08:42 PM


Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!